As Usual, Patriots Likely Sparked Another Rule Change This Offseason

[Bill Lee]

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

I think the thing is that one doesn't really learn the rules till one's team either benefits or gets burned by the rules. This is what made me go through what they really are. The flowchart on pg 1 really helps, IMHO. The main issue is that many/most fans haven't had to do this (yet) and think that judging catch/no-catch is simpler than it really is. It turns out that there are a lot more ways a play can evolve than most people can think of at the instant a play is made.

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

BB often talks about how he coaches to the rules. I hate that others don't get this. Not fumbling is more important than scoring so you coach up control of the ball and forbid stretching the ball across the goal line. BB does this. Why don't other coaches? Do they not read and understand the rules?

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.

Here's where I disagree. It seems clear that fans expect and prefer that crossing the goal line has higher priority than 'surviving the ground'. If the ball is judged to be under control at the instant it crosses the plane, most people would say it's a catch. Yes, this is harder for officials to judge, but it seems to be what the fans want and expect.

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??!?”

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.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the thing is that one doesn't really learn the rules till one's team either benefits or gets burned by the rules. This is what made me go through what they really are. The flowchart on pg 1 really helps, IMHO. The main issue is that many/most fans haven't had to do this (yet) and think that judging catch/no-catch is simpler than it really is. It turns out that there are a lot more ways a play can evolve than most people can think of at the instant a play is made.


BB often talks about how he coaches to the rules. I hate that others don't get this. Not fumbling is more important than scoring so you coach up control of the ball and forbid stretching the ball across the goal line. BB does this. Why don't other coaches? Do they not read and understand the rules?


Here's where I disagree. It seems clear that fans expect and prefer that crossing the goal line has higher priority than 'surviving the ground'. If the ball is judged to be under control at the instant it crosses the plane, most people would say it's a catch. Yes, this is harder for officials to judge, but it seems to be what the fans want and expect.


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.

Then you would be calling a dropped pass a TD though.
Fans want what fixes the thing they don’t like. In this case it would cause more outrage than it would prevent.
But weve seen other stupid rules that backfire like moving the kickoff up and dining people for legal hits when the other guy gets injured so who knows what they will come up with next?

 

[Bill Lee]

Then you would be calling a dropped pass a TD though.

No, because the play would end while the ball is in control and before it is "dropped".

Fans want what fixes the thing they don’t like. In this case it would cause more outrage than it would prevent.

I disagree. I think most fans would say the plays that fit the pattern (Bryant, ASJ, James) really are touchdowns.

 

[slam]

Fans want good efforts that don't meet the letter of the law to be rewarded.

Problem is there's no way to write a rule that satisfies that without causing other issues.

 

[Ring 6]

No, because the play would end while the ball is in control and before it is "dropped".

So people will be fine with dropped passes counting as TDs?

I disagree. I think most fans would say the plays that fit the pattern (Bryant, ASJ, James) really are touchdowns.

So if it happens at the 1 it’s incomplete but if it happens in the end zone it’s a completion and a TD? I wouldn’t like that.
ASJ wouldn’t be affected because he lost possession before breaking the plane and didn’t regain possession until after being out of bounds. He was a runner who had completed the catch and then fumbled before crossing the plane.

 

[Ring 6]

Fans want good efforts that don't meet the letter of the law to be rewarded.

Problem is there's no way to write a rule that satisfies that without causing other issues.

Isn’t it inconsistent that fans want replay to get it exactly right but then want the rule to be ignored when it seems unfair?
I mean that’s what it comes down to. James made an unforced error of not completing the catch. But since it would have been a huge play people want close enough to count. If Chung had hammered him as he was going down and knocked the ball out would you still call it a TD and not reward chungs effort?

I don’t think nice effort almost made a good play deserve to be rewarded

 

[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.

What "the fans want" changes from one situation to the next. I understand what you are saying about your rule suggestion, I am just explaining to you how your rule solves one problem and just creates another.

 

[Tony2046]

No, because the play would end while the ball is in control and before it is "dropped".

I disagree. I think most fans would say the plays that fit the pattern (Bryant, ASJ, James) really are touchdowns.

Wow. That would change the definition of what possession means which would have to be applied to any catch.

Right now the rule works and is about as minimally subjective as you can get. Why change something that can be coached? Don't reach across the goal line unless you have full control of the ball. Don't lose control of the ball. It's that simple. The fans will learn what a real catch is and if they want to study it they'll understand why it is written the way it is.

 

[Bill Lee]

So people will be fine with dropped passes counting as TDs?

I think the expectation is already set that 'breaking the plane' ends a play when a runner stretches the ball over, and most people accept that everything that happens after that is no longer relevant.

So if it happens at the 1 it’s incomplete but if it happens in the end zone it’s a completion and a TD? I wouldn’t like that.

A fumble before and after breaking the plane are treated differently.

ASJ wouldn’t be affected because he lost possession before breaking the plane and didn’t regain possession until after being out of bounds. He was a runner who had completed the catch and then fumbled before crossing the plane.

Good point.

Wow. That would change the definition of what possession means which would have to be applied to any catch.

Not really. The idea that breaking the plane has priority over surviving the ground is not changing the rules that are in play elsewhere, it's just a special case that applies only at the goal line, just like fumbling, etc.

Right now the rule works and is about as minimally subjective as you can get. Why change something that can be coached? Don't reach across the goal line unless you have full control of the ball. Don't lose control of the ball. It's that simple. The fans will learn what a real catch is and if they want to study it they'll understand why it is written the way it is.

Thing is, fans are not learning what a real catch is. Some casual fans will never get it. I consider myself much more than a casual fan and I didn't get it till I sat down and went through the rules. I just looked at the replay and it took Nance and Romo over two minutes and twenty seconds before they could even fathom why it wasn't a catch. Say what you will about those two, but if they don't get it, casual fans can't be expected to either.

Interestingly enough (or not), I just heard The Ringer NFL Show (Mays/Clark) and they stated that the NFL actually likes the fact that no one knows what a catch is, because it gets people talking. It's kind of like the idea that any publicity is good publicity. I guess I'm not willing to be that cynical. I think everyone would be more happy if things were clearer.

They also made the point that the referees do not use the "incontrovertible evidence" standard. We all know this, because we see them overturn things all the time without "incontrovertible evidence". So, what gives? Answer: NFL referees get judged/ranked by their superiors (Riveron etc) and those rankings control a lot of things, especially getting shots at playoff and SB slots, which means more money and more prestige. The superiors don't apply the "incontrovertible evidence" standard, they apply the "did you make the right call" standard, so that's how we end up with referees taking several minutes scrolling through the replay frame after frame while we all wonder WTF is going on.

 

[rochrist]

I think the expectation is already set that 'breaking the plane' ends a play when a runner stretches the ball over, and most people accept that everything that happens after that is no longer relevant.

A fumble before and after breaking the plane are treated differently.

Good point.


Not really. The idea that breaking the plane has priority over surviving the ground is not changing the rules that are in play elsewhere, it's just a special case that applies only at the goal line, just like fumbling, etc.

Of course it is. It's putting a priority over actually catching the ball. I can see a thousand ways this would lend itself to atrocious outcomes. And probably leave it to 'well, seems like it ought to be a catch' which is no way to run a professional football league.

Catch the ball. If you go to the ground catching the ball, make sure you hold on to it all the way to the ground.

There's nothing difficult or arcane about it.

Also, re: Romo, the second he actually looked at the end of the play he said it was likely to be overturned. He knew the rule.

 

[Wheelman]

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.

If that's the case, then he needs to be booted from this site immediately. Ian shouldn't be condoning that kind of crap on here.

 

[Tony2046]

Not really. The idea that breaking the plane has priority over surviving the ground is not changing the rules that are in play elsewhere, it's just a special case that applies only at the goal line, just like fumbling, etc.

The key to the catch is obtaining possession as defined by the rule. What's the difference between crossing a goal line and crossing a first down marker? Both are worthy of fair play.

What special case applies to fumbling at the goal line? A fumble is a fumble. If you fumble out of bounds, in bounds or through the end zone it is still a fumble. What happens after you fumble in each of those instances are different but the definition of fumble stays the same.

By the way, the catch rule directly influences the definition of what a fumble is. You can't fumble if you never possessed the football.

I admit I didn't understand it thoroughly until we had a discussion about ASJ's fumble through the endzone. (Pats vs Jets) I understand it now and I like it a lot. It's clear and pretty much leaves the referees judgment out of it. Did he become a runner? No. Did he survive the ground? No. It's not a catch.

Changing what defines a catch or fumble at the goal line as opposed to what it is for the rest of the field seems more complicated and confusing than just teaching what the rule is.

Butt hurt Fan: "It's a catch at the goal line and not at the first down marker??" "That's bull ****"

Mike Tomlin: "We need to really take a look at that. If it's considered a catch for something as important as a TD it should be considered a catch for a first down".

The rule needs to stay as is. Coaches need to understand the rule and coach their players to the rules. Fans need to read the rule book and understand the rule.

"How come the Pats are kicking a free field goal after a fair catch?" "That's bull ****". Change that rule too because the fans don't understand it.

FYI: I hope none of that comes across as snarky because I'm enjoying the conversation and you have brought up good points. Just having fun with the "butt hurt fans" at Pittsburgh's expense.

 

[drewskie]

The rules are pretty clear. Its like trouble shooting. You need to first identify if a catch was made before determining if the "runner" rule applies. James never completed what you would term as a conventional catch. That takes precedence over breaking the plane because he wasn't a runner. The ASF play isn't that difficult to comprehend either. He was a runner who lost control of the ball even if only momentarily. Fumbled the ball into the end zone which is therefore a touch back for the defense. Its only difficult for a large majority of people because they can't fathom why a play that looks like a TD isn't after all.

 

[Oswlek]

The idea that breaking the plane has priority over surviving the ground is not changing the rules that are in play elsewhere, it's just a special case that applies only at the goal line, just like fumbling, etc.

How does breaking the plane matter when possession hasn't been demonstrated yet?

Interestingly enough (or not), I just heard The Ringer NFL Show (Mays/Clark) and they stated that the NFL actually likes the fact that no one knows what a catch is

I listen to those every week - they're consistently entertaining and informative - but holy hell did Mays have no clue what he was talking about on this play.

 

[Bill Lee]

The key to the catch is obtaining possession as defined by the rule. What's the difference between crossing a goal line and crossing a first down marker? Both are worthy of fair play.

What special case applies to fumbling at the goal line? A fumble is a fumble. If you fumble out of bounds, in bounds or through the end zone it is still a fumble. What happens after you fumble in each of those instances are different but the definition of fumble stays the same.

The fumble after crossing the plane is different than the fumble before crossing the plane.

I think the rules as currently written are fine once you learn what they all are and why each and every part of the rule is there. The problem is that the causal fan probably isn't going to do it. You said you didn't do it till after the ASJ issue. I'm saying I didn't do it till this play. Tony Romo was an NFL QB for over a decade and it took him over two minutes before he caught on. How is the causal fan ever going to come up to speed? Can you even get most millennials to ever do it, or will they just watch cat videos instead?

FYI: I hope none of that comes across as snarky because I'm enjoying the conversation and you have brought up good points. Just having fun with the "butt hurt fans" at Pittsburgh's expense.

Thanks for pointing this out. As you can tell, I'm taking the opposite approach. I'm of course thrilled that the rules resulted in the correct call and that it worked in our favor. I'm just trying to understand why so many fans and so many sports writers prefer the "fifty guys in a bar" approach and why the current rules don't deliver the outcome that most fans seemed to expect.

The NFL has reached a point where it has rules that it can coach and referee to, but that produce results that some times don't pass the "eye test". The NFL seems to like the controversy, but I think the down side of fan dissatisfaction outweighs the up side of free publicity and easy content. The rules also lead to long, disruptive reviews because of their complexity and because the refs do not apply the "incontrovertible evidence" standard, they pick things apart frame by frame.

The result is a product that comes across as fake and bureaucratic, rather than fun and organic like backyard football was/is. Hopefully there is some middle ground where the rules are definitive but can be evaluated more quickly and can be more tailored to meet the fan's expectations than the current ones.

But, yeah, Tomlin can suck it. The rules are the ones we have right now. His whole coaching staff choked in a bit spot. He didn't have a solid plan for when to call his last time out, he didn't use the time during the replay to call extra plays, and he didn't coach the fake spike play well enough (slant route, really?). His franchise quarterback threw him under the bus publicly, which he shouldn't have done, but in reality he was correct: the coaches choked. Of course Ben should know to not throw into triple coverage, but that's Ben.

 

[rochrist]

The fumble after crossing the plane is different than the fumble before crossing the plane.

I think the rules as currently written are fine once you learn what they all are and why each and every part of the rule is there. The problem is that the causal fan probably isn't going to do it. You said you didn't do it till after the ASJ issue. I'm saying I didn't do it till this play. Tony Romo was an NFL QB for over a decade and it took him over two minutes before he caught on. How is the causal fan ever going to come up to speed? Can you even get most millennials to ever do it, or will they just watch cat videos instead?
....

To be fair to Romo, he understood the rule perfectly, it just took him a minute to focus on the end of the play. As soon as he did he started saying it was going to be overturned.

 

[Tony2046]

The fumble after crossing the plane is different than the fumble before crossing the plane.

I think the rules as currently written are fine once you learn what they all are and why each and every part of the rule is there. The problem is that the causal fan probably isn't going to do it. You said you didn't do it till after the ASJ issue. I'm saying I didn't do it till this play. Tony Romo was an NFL QB for over a decade and it took him over two minutes before he caught on. How is the causal fan ever going to come up to speed? Can you even get most millennials to ever do it, or will they just watch cat videos instead?


Thanks for pointing this out. As you can tell, I'm taking the opposite approach. I'm of course thrilled that the rules resulted in the correct call and that it worked in our favor. I'm just trying to understand why so many fans and so many sports writers prefer the "fifty guys in a bar" approach and why the current rules don't deliver the outcome that most fans seemed to expect.

The NFL has reached a point where it has rules that it can coach and referee to, but that produce results that some times don't pass the "eye test". The NFL seems to like the controversy, but I think the down side of fan dissatisfaction outweighs the up side of free publicity and easy content. The rules also lead to long, disruptive reviews because of their complexity and because the refs do not apply the "incontrovertible evidence" standard, they pick things apart frame by frame.

The result is a product that comes across as fake and bureaucratic, rather than fun and organic like backyard football was/is. Hopefully there is some middle ground where the rules are definitive but can be evaluated more quickly and can be more tailored to meet the fan's expectations than the current ones.

But, yeah, Tomlin can suck it. The rules are the ones we have right now. His whole coaching staff choked in a bit spot. He didn't have a solid plan for when to call his last time out, he didn't use the time during the replay to call extra plays, and he didn't coach the fake spike play well enough (slant route, really?). His franchise quarterback threw him under the bus publicly, which he shouldn't have done, but in reality he was correct: the coaches choked. Of course Ben should know to not throw into triple coverage, but that's Ben.

I'm in Falcon's territory at the moment and often wear a Pats T-shirt or cap to work. Last Monday was a busy "explain the catch rule" day. But everyone understood it after the explanation. Of course it helped that one of the managers already understood the rule and chipped in but oddly enough he thinks the ball placement rule isn't strict enough. He thinks reaching the ball over the goal line for a TD should not count. haha.

How is a fumble after crossing the plane different?

 

[Bill Lee]

To be fair to Romo, he understood the rule perfectly, it just took him a minute to focus on the end of the play. As soon as he did he started saying it was going to be overturned.

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.

 

[Bill Lee]

How is a fumble after crossing the plane different?

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!

 

[Nunchucks]

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!

If you haven't demonstrated possession of the ball before crossing the goaline, how can you say they caught the ball.

If somebody is diving over the goal line, catches the ball and looks like he has possession for half a second and then drops it, does that count as a TD?

The rule is fine as it stands.