Bad rule crap

[aluminum seats]

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.

Disagree with that. If they've got control it's ok. Edelman's crazy catch in the Super Bowl hit the ground, but he had control.

 

[maineman209]

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.

The are actually two rules regarding fumbles out of the endzone:

1) Team A (on offense) fumbles the ball into Team B's endzone and the ball carries through the endzone out of bounds
= Touchback and possession by Team B at their own 20-yard line.

... If Team B recovers Team A's fumble in Team B's endzone, it's a Touchback (provided the Team B player downs the ball there without carrying it out of the end zone into the field of play).
... If Team B intercepts Team A's pass attempt in Team B's endzone, it's a Touchback (provided the Team B player downs the ball there without carrying it out of the end zone into the field of play).

Basically, Team A fumbling the ball through Team B's endzone is treated as the equivalent of Team B recovering that fumble and downing it within the Team B endzone.


2) Team A fumbles the ball into it's own endzone and the ball carries through the endzone out of bounds
= Safety for Team B, and possession for Team B after a free kick by Team A.

... If Team A recovers its own fumble in their own endzone and is downed there, it's a Safety & possession for Team B .

Both rules penalize the offense (Team A) for fumbling into either endzone. However, the penalty on Team A for fumbling into (through) their own endzone is even harsher - loss of possession PLUS points for Team B.

I'm honestly not sure what would be accomplished by changing either rule, and I'm especially skeptical about changing one rule so that it favors the offense and not the other.

 

[XLIX]

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.

If they ever did that, it would be an absolute disaster.

 

[XLIX]

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’s what the Bert Emanuel rule changed. It is far from “simple and fair.”

 

[maineman209]

Very few (if any) rules fit absolutely every circumstance that can occur in every game perfectly. But are the decisions based on the application of the rule clear under all but a few relatively exceptional circumstances?

There were nearly 18,300 regular season pass attempts in 2016. Roughly 11,500 (63%) of those were ruled complete; roughly 6,800 were ruled incomplete.

There are 256 regular season games.

How many times per game is a review applying the "definition of a catch" even necessary for the complete/incomplete ruling? Twice? Three times? If three times, that's 768 of over 18,000 pass plays.

How many times per game is the decision in any way unclear/controversial? Is it even once per game? If it's once, that's 256 plays out of over 18,000. That would mean that the application of the "catch/no-catch" definition is unclear on only 1.4% of all pass plays.

 

[Hammertimebaz]

That’s what the Bert Emanuel rule changed. It is far from “simple and fair.”

Just watched a the replays, that surely proves there can’t be a non controversial catch rule. So pick a rule and sick to it, maybe the current one is right?.