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

[maust]

They changed it from "football move" to essentially "possessed it long enough to have done a football move", which IMHO was an improvement. But it's still been broken since 2000.

The fact remains that we weren't hair splitting like this 10 years ago. While some of it is endemic to HD and digital tech, the constant tinkering is a product of a reactionary league office.

 

[maineman209]

Well, THAT is certainly a huuuuuge improvement!

[/sarcasm]

 

[Koma]

Well, THAT is certainly a huuuuuge improvement!

[/sarcasm]

WTF is "The ability to perform such an act (reaching/extending the ball for the line to gain)" and how is that going to be consistently interpreted?

 

[Sfpat]

Trying out the new rule in the Super Bowl was a bold move, but we all know Rog and Co are visionaries.

Actually, had the new rule been in place for the SB, the Clement TD would have been incomplete (need to have control and feet in bounds which he didn't have). That said, it should have been incomplete under the old rules too.

 

[maineman209]

 

[QuantumMechanic]

WTF is "The ability to perform such an act (reaching/extending the ball for the line to gain)" and how is that going to be consistently interpreted?

"Ability to perform such an act" is basically the existing rule:

maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).

 

[Biffins]

So this is now a TD at 2:20. And if it happens not in end zone, it's a fumble instead of an incomplete pass.

 

[Biffins]

And this is also a TD and we don't make it to that year's Superbowl.

 

[Doctor DDS]

The biggest issue is not the catch rule or even replay but the millions of butt hurt fans and media who refuse to accept the rules as written and want to establish some sort of "fairness doctrine" after the fact. The Pats were the beneficiaries of 3 fairly high profile touchdown reversals (Benjamin, Seferian-Jenkins and of course James) that were really not controversial if you understood the rules. The problem was that it benefited the Pats and that could not be tolerated so everyone pretended not to understand what a catch was or that the going to the ground rule was made up on the spot. Football is too fast a sport to have a definitive catch standard. It is impossible to establish a formulaic answer to every possibility and this change will make things more subjective.

I'd prefer they give each team one extra challenge per game but remove the automatic reviews for TD's. Rules remain the same but challenge decisions will likely need to be made without definitive proof and if bad calls are upheld you can blame the team for not challenging.

 

[maineman209]

 

[Joker]

what about the balls though...you know, the checks for inflation/deflation? Remember? 20 million in legal fees....year and a half of media circus headlines? Remember? I've yet to see any "checks". In fact I see and hear ZERO about any of it from the league office since they employed "Article 46!!!!!!". So, why all the friggin' drama....just "article 46" every freakin' questionable reception and end the goddaymed charades. Ratdell has RUINED the NFL and made it a McMahon-o-rama media "event". This bullshyt is just more of the same "they'll believe anything" crap from the most ignorant, idiotic,malignant misanthrope to ever stain the American sporting landscape.

 

[skinnydog]

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 kind of pre-instituted the change on the Clement TD because . . . Patriots.

 

[Nunchucks]

The biggest issue is not the catch rule or even replay but the millions of butt hurt fans and media who refuse to accept the rules as written and want to establish some sort of "fairness doctrine" after the fact. The Pats were the beneficiaries of 3 fairly high profile touchdown reversals (Benjamin, Seferian-Jenkins and of course James) that were really not controversial if you understood the rules. The problem was that it benefited the Pats and that could not be tolerated so everyone pretended not to understand what a catch was or that the going to the ground rule was made up on the spot. Football is too fast a sport to have a definitive catch standard. It is impossible to establish a formulaic answer to every possibility and this change will make things more subjective.

I'd prefer they give each team one extra challenge per game but remove the automatic reviews for TD's. Rules remain the same but challenge decisions will likely need to be made without definitive proof and if bad calls are upheld you can blame the team for not challenging.

I completely agree. The rule was clear. I knew what a catch was or was not according to the rule. Fans have to understand that the rule would be called in their favor and against them. That is how this always goes. Now it is going to be up for interpretation all the time and fans are going to get pissed about "catches" that are non-catches after watching replay and vice versa. At least with the previous rule, we knew and understood why....

Too much interpretation is going to make folks very unhappy.

I hate this incoming rule because I want the game called correctly..I don't want to have to watch replay and see that the opposite of what was called happened but we are going to go with the call on the field because....

This will likely be a disaster, as more and more fans get upset by obviously incorrect calls.

 

[Joker]

I hate this incoming rule because I want the game called correctly..I don't want to have to watch replay and see that the opposite of what was called happened but we are going to go with the call on the field because....

This will likely be a disaster, as more and more fans get upset by obviously incorrect calls.

Watch replay to see? Uh...now we're gonna get...DECISION FROM NFL OFFICES GAME OPERATIONS DIVISION....tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick tick.........NFL OFFICES DETERMINE IT'S A CATCH...ARTICLE 46!!!!!!!