Bad rule crap

[lurker1965]

OK, I've had enough of the "bad rule" crap. If the ball hits the ground, moves, and even knocks your hands away it is NOT a catch. Even if playing in the back yard, the object of a pass is to AVOID the ground. I can see limiting replay to half speed, or whatever - the frame by frame stuff is a bit much - but the rule about "surviving the ground" actually makes sense. Besides if you insist the ground can not cause incomplete passes we will have an extra 6 or so fumbles a game.

I am sick and tired of the idiots saying it is a bad rule.

And this goes double for the hosts of 4th and 2. Maybe I was distracted while listening.

 

[Wheelman]

Coincidentally, the bobble is the reason we didn't get the 1st down according to the refs on the 4th and 2.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Regardless of the rules verbiage - secure the ball has always existed - secure it ... don't lose it.

If James had secured it - there would be no issue.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Mid field, the ball comes to the receiver. He traps it against the ground. Is it a catch? No.

Mid field, ball is being bobbled. He falls to the ground and secured the ball by trapping it on the ground. He goes forward while bobbling for 2 yards. Catch? No.

A forward pass can be incomplete. A handoff cant. A lateral pitch cant.

It’s a fumble every other situation when the ball is on the ground except a pass. Center/qb exchange bobble, handoff bobble, pitch bobble.

Enter the plane of the goal line. You start off with possession. You start to have less certain possession crossing the plane. TD. The “ground can’t cause a fumble.” You don’t have the prove you ever had the ball.the ball isn’t in anybody else’s hands and it’s not on the ground, and it’s in contact w you crossing the plane.

Now if you throw a pass, you can have that one funny situation where there’s a dead ball, an incomplete pass.

It doesn’t matter that the somewhat exacting standard for a catch was applied in a trans-goal line situation. He crossed the goal line, so did the ball. Same happens if you throw a back corner fade or something and the receiver drops the ball.

It just doesn’t seem that way, because w running backs the golden rule is you break the plane, and that’s it.

But a receiving touchdown requires catching the ball, which the receiver never did.

 

[archstanton543]

If the rule changes, it's going to have a bunch of unintended consequences. Kind of like when they moved kickoff touchbacks to the 25 to "reduce injuries"...teams just started kicking the ball short of the goal line. If the rule is changes, you'll see a lot more passing and a lot more low thrown balls because, if the ground can't cause a fumble or incomplete pass, you have nothing to lose by letting the ball touch the ground.

The rule is fine as is. That they took out the "football move" part of it was all it needed.

There are few "bad" rules in the rulebook. Just leave it alone.

 

[archstanton543]

Regardless of the rules verbiage - secure the ball has always existed - secure it ... don't lose it.

If James had secured it - there would be no issue.

And you're not allowed to block downfield on a passing play. The Steelers scored a TD on the play where they picked up the flag for a blatant penalty. I see the James non-TD call as an apt makeup call.

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

And you're not allowed to block downfield on a passing play. The Steelers scored a TD on the play where they picked up the flag for a blatant penalty. I see the James non-TD call as an apt makeup call.

"ineligible receiver" or also known as the Pats Rule.
"Rub route" or also known as the Pats Pick Play.

 

[InRodWeRust]

 

[RedSleevesPinkStripes]

Think about it this way.

Roles are reversed. Gronk makes the same non-catch as JJ to win the game, replay shows same loss of possession upon hitting the ground, but the refs uphold the TD.

What would Steelers fans be saying?

 

[aluminum seats]

Completely agree. Here's what I'd ask all the "bad rule" people: what would you like the rule to be?

Most seem to go with something idiotic like "uh, if it looks like a catch, it's a catch..." Not really a rule.

 

[Hammertimebaz]

Rules need to be clear, the only change I would like that would clear up the Pittsburg game is “if the ball hits the ground at all in the process of catching, it’s not a catch.” That is simple and fair plus that’s what we think of as the catch rule as kids playing in parks.

 

[DarrylS]

When I saw the replay it became obvious that the ball was not secured, but the need to create controversy is greater than the need to observe what is clearly not a catch.. for some reason controversy drives media today.

They can change the rule, but it will only lead to more confusion in the future.. what impressed me was that it became known that BB prohibits Pats players from doing this.. so he knew the rule, everybody else should know it also.

 

[Gwedd]

OK, I've had enough of the "bad rule" crap. If the ball hits the ground, moves, and even knocks your hands away it is NOT a catch. Even if playing in the back yard, the object of a pass is to AVOID the ground. I can see limiting replay to half speed, or whatever - the frame by frame stuff is a bit much - but the rule about "surviving the ground" actually makes sense. Besides if you insist the ground can not cause incomplete passes we will have an extra 6 or so fumbles a game.

I am sick and tired of the idiots saying it is a bad rule.

And this goes double for the hosts of 4th and 2. Maybe I was distracted while listening.

For me, the "Be careful what you ask for" part is that Tomlin was a part of the competition committee that implemented this rule.

 

[VegasGuy]

Completely agree. Here's what I'd ask all the "bad rule" people: what would you like the rule to be?

Most seem to go with something idiotic like "uh, if it looks like a catch, it's a catch..." Not really a rule.

Agreed. Like it or not, we actually have a definition of what a catch is. Years ago it was just a judgement call.

Now the one rule I don't like is the fumble out of the end zone rule.

 

[ThatllMoveTheChains!!!]

Agreed. Like it or not, we actually have a definition of what a catch is. Years ago it was just a judgement call.

Now the one rule I don't like is the fumble out of the end zone rule.

I like that one, and would be all for extending the logic to the rest of the field. Once a team gains possession if they lose possession the ball belongs to the other team unless the original team regains possession. I get the 'they had it last' logic, but that possession ended either by a bad play by them or a good play by the other team, so why not punish them and reward the other team.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

People are upset the patriots won another signature game, plain and simple. This was the biggest regular season game in a few years and its just hard for people to come to grips with the fact that Pittsburgh didnt get it done even when it ‘looked like’ they would win. Nothing takes the credit away from us better oh its a bad rule or oh the refs cheated us. Its the easy copout bs excuses we’ve been hearing the last 16 years. Much easier than getting it done on the field like men.

Look at bob ‘c**tface’ costas on opening night damn near breaking into tears talking about the super bowl and how it was ‘decided by a coin toss’ , clamoring for a rule change. If the Falcons won the coin toss and score a td on the opening drive I GUARANTEE he doesn’t complain about the ot rules, but suddenly they need fixed . No, pu**y, the rule is fine. Same with this rule.

 

[maineman209]

And you're not allowed to block downfield on a passing play. The Steelers scored a TD on the play where they picked up the flag for a blatant penalty. I see the James non-TD call as an apt makeup call.

Blocking downfield on a pass play is not allowed before the catch.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Still the best post-game interview in the history of the Patriots. Man, *I* was fired up and bouncing off the walls after that. Talk about putting the league and media in its place.

("Roger that" would have beaten it out though, if Brady said it live instead of via a commercial.)

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Rules need to be clear, the only change I would like that would clear up the Pittsburg game is “if the ball hits the ground at all in the process of catching, it’s not a catch.” That is simple and fair plus that’s what we think of as the catch rule as kids playing in parks.

That was the rule up until 1999 when its negation of Bert Emanuel's catch in the NFCCG (which led to the Rams going to and winning SB34) triggered the first of many rules changes to say that the ball could touch the ground so long as "enough" control was maintained.

 

[lurker1965]

Completely agree. Here's what I'd ask all the "bad rule" people: what would you like the rule to be?

Most seem to go with something idiotic like "uh, if it looks like a catch, it's a catch..." Not really a rule.

I agree. I counter if 50 drunk in a bar see the replay and the ball hit the ground, moved, and bumped the receivers top hand off the ball and sill say it is a catch: 1) the bar is in Pittsburgh. 2) It is "special ed." night 3) the bar tender needs to cut them off.