Proposed catch rule changes made by 345 Park Ave (Patriots DID IT AGAIN)

[JMC00]

the league will allow for some “slight movement” of the ball and will eliminate the required element of “going to the ground.”

The competition committee can finalize its rules on Tuesday and then present them to the owners for approval next week

Changes To NFL Catch Rule Makes It Sound Like There Will Be A Lot More Catches Next Season



100% chance the Jesse James and Kelvin Benjamin non-catches are the reason for these changes.

Funny part is the "slight movement" thing. As if they didn't allow "slight movement" on the Clement TD

 

[Kontradiction]

Great. Looking forward to having this discussion again next offseason.

 

[PF_SU]

In other words, more judgemental decisions for refs to impact the game. How in the world do you want to give a consistent definition of what constitutes 'slight movement'?

 

[Sicilian]

I can't wait for a Edelman to be bobbling the ball over the goal line, have it confirmed a touchdown, and watching all the fans heads explode with conspiracy theories, citing the catches this past year and ignoring this rule change altogether.

On a serious note, they have now made the rule more subjective, which I am not in favor of. If you don't want to leave a touchdown up to a questionable ref call, play well enough to not let it be close. If the difference between you winning or losing a game was the slight bobble of a football, the game was a coin flip anyway.

 

[Froob]

Great. Looking forward to having this discussion again next offseason.

Yup we’ll win a game where someone looses the ball going to the ground. Hopefully against Pittsburgh.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

the league will allow for some “slight movement” of the ball and will eliminate the required element of “going to the ground.”

The competition committee can finalize its rules on Tuesday and then present them to the owners for approval next week

Changes To NFL Catch Rule Makes It Sound Like There Will Be A Lot More Catches Next Season



100% chance the Jesse James and Kelvin Benjamin non-catches are the reason for these changes.

Funny part is the "slight movement" thing. As if they didn't allow "slight movement" on the Clement TD

They actually did reference the Jesse James non-catch as one of the prime examples:

NFL sets new definition for controversial catch rule

 

[Sicilian]

Removing the required element of going to the ground brings to mind an interesting scenario: If Gronk goes up for a jump ball in the end zone, it would seem from that wording that all he needs to do is have some possession of the ball at it's highest point when his feet touch the ground. The instant that happens, it's a touchdown. I'm not sure there's a DB that could consistently outjump him, the best strategy would be to rip the ball out before he hits the ground. That doesn't matter any more.

 

[Patstopia]

It is a good thing that the rules have been altered to allow even more judgements by NYFL. The rules should just state that all rulings should never favor the Patriots. (With a see super bowl example)

 

[maust]

Clear as mud. God save us from the NFL's 'clarifications' of the rules.

 

[Sfpat]

Be careful what you wish for (to those other teams), I'm guessing there will be more "fumbles" on plays that previously would have been incompletions.

 

[DaBruinz]

So, going to the ground no longer matters?? Guess that means we'll have more quick whistles and fewer forced fumbles since the player will be down by contact..

 

[Observer]

Only the idiots of the NFL could put ‘slight movement’ into a rule. Obvious attempt at giving the video refs the power to change game outcome to agree with public sentiment.

 

[XLIX]

Here is the NFL's never ending cycle:

A) New rule implemented

B) Controversial play happens where new rule is applied correctly, but the general public whines and moans about "I can't believe that's a catch/not a catch!!"

C) League decides to overreact to fan sentiment

D) Go to (A)

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Heck, perhaps Goodell and 345 should put up twitter polls with video examples to have people vote on it. Might be more effective than these guys really listening to the fans that cried boo-hoo all the time.

Heck, let's remove it from the officials hand and make it a real time vote with fans (they don't even have to be watching the games)! Then good 'ol Roger won't be the bad guy.

 

[maineman209]

In other words, more judgemental decisions for refs to impact the game. How in the world do you want to give a consistent definition of what constitutes 'slight movement'?

Compare it to a tape of my ex during intercourse?

 

[Kontradiction]

Heck, perhaps Goodell and 345 should put up twitter polls with video examples to have people vote on it. Might be more effective than these guys really listening to the fans that cried boo-hoo all the time.

Heck, let's remove it from the officials hand and make it a real time vote with fans (they don't even have to be watching the games)! Then good 'ol Roger won't be the bad guy.

They just shouldn't have tinkered with the catch rule in the first place. It gets worse and more confusing with each iteration of it they put out.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

They just shouldn't have tinkered with the catch rule in the first place. It gets worse and more confusing with each iteration of it they put out.

Bingo!

It should have been rolled back to the pre-Bert Emmanuel rule: If the ball touches the ground at all it is an incomplete pass.

 

[RobertWeathers]

************.

I swear to God they do this to cause a stir and stay in the 365 day news cycle.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

Here is the NFL's never ending cycle:

A) New rule implemented

B) Controversial play happens where new rule is applied correctly, but the general public whines and moans about "I can't believe that's a catch/not a catch!!"

C) League decides to overreact to fan sentiment

D) Go to (A)

I'd modify B to read . B) Controversial play happens where new rule is applied correctly, BENEFITTING THE NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS but the general public whines and moans about "I can't believe that's a catch/not a catch!!"

 

[Uncle Rico]

So the league wants to make this unquestionably maybe possibly a catch. Cool.

That pic is from a Bleacher Report story (linked from CNN.com). Here's how the story starts:

NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Troy Vincent said Tuesday that the league is closing in on clarifying its controversial catch rule.

According to Mark Maske of the Washington Post, Vincent said the NFL plans to eliminate two factors that can cause incompletions.

"Slight movement of the ball, it looks like we'll reverse that," he said. "Going to the ground, it looks like that's going to be eliminated. And we'll go back to the old replay standard of reverse the call on the field only when it's indisputable."

Seems to me that Vincent's quote tells us the rule clarifies nothing, but only interjects a much higher level of subjectivity.

NFL Competition Committee Plans to Alter Catch-Rule Language, Replay Process

All because the Patriots were involved.