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

[Tony2046]

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

NFL sets new definition for controversial catch rule

I think Troy Vincent was misquoted. I'm sure he said "we worked ass backwards"

“We worked backward,” said Troy Vincent, the NFL’s executive vice president of football operations. “We looked at plays and said: Do you want that to be a catch? And then we applied that to the rule.”

 

[Tony2046]

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 would add:

A) New rule implemented

B) BB coaches his team to the new rule.

C) 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!!"

D) League decides to overreact to fan sentiment

D) Go to (A)

 

[PatsFan2]

Patriots sure handed Receivers like Gronk and Edelman are going to have a lot of catches. This rule change might make Gronk re-think his possible early retirement.

 

[XLIX]

I would add:

A) New rule implemented

B) BB coaches his team to the new rule.

C) 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!!"

D) League decides to overreact to fan sentiment

D) Go to (A)

I agree. That's why I believe all these new rules benefit the Patriots more than hurt them. Other teams won't even adjust one bit, Belichick is light years ahead of them.

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

What constitutes possession? 1/10 of a second, 1/4 of a second ? 2 feet down? This is going to be a freaking mess.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I think removing the 'going to the ground' part of the rule would be helpful to take away the rb vs wr carrying the ball distinction that previously existed. But the slight movement part of the rule sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. I'd say no to 'slight movement'.

And yes, a big part of the motivation is the Patriots somehow being involved. We are that much in the spotlight.

Hopefully they get the catch rule right and make it fundamentally sound and cleanly worded. It's going to be an important rule going forward.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I think Troy Vincent was misquoted. I'm sure he said "we worked ass backwards"

“We worked backward,” said Troy Vincent, the NFL’s executive vice president of football operations. “We looked at plays and said: Do you want that to be a catch? And then we applied that to the rule.”

Troy Vincent isn't qualified to work at Sonic

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

The probem with this, in my opinion, is they are trying to make the rule fit the play, instead of the player fitting the rule.

This will go back and forth every year, as long as a committee member comes up short.

Football is a joke anymore.

 

[Kdo5]

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

This is going to make it worse. At least the previous rule was clear.

 

[Shockt327]

Remember, no one whined when the rule was enforced in Pittsburgh's favor back in 2001...

 

[Hyped]

Whatever they do....as long as it removes as much 'judgement' from the equation...I am good with it.

The Pats will be coached up to whatever it is...as alluded to above.

Can anyone do a run down of all the rule changes in the last 20 years stemming from controversial plays involving the Pats? (e.g. Tuck rule being upheld and later reversed, no touching receivers after 5 yards, no jumping over the line to block FG's, etc...etc..)

 

[Charlotte Pats Fan]

Whatever they do....as long as it removes as much 'judgement' from the equation...I am good with it.

The Pats will be coached up to whatever it is...as alluded to above.

Can anyone do a run down of all the rule changes in the last 20 years stemming from controversial plays involving the Pats? (e.g. Tuck rule being upheld and later reversed, no touching receivers after 5 yards, no jumping over the line to block FG's, etc...etc..)

Its going to add more judgement from the refs. Going to cause a Cluster****.

 

[maust]

For 70+ years of NFL history everyone knew what a catch was. Fraudger and his crew got in there and no one has been clear on it since. They 'fixed' something that wasn't broken and have spent every year since trying to figure out how to get that season's toothpaste back in the tube.

 

[Ross12]

Compare it to a tape of my ex during intercourse?

The fact that posts like this get rated “Useful” is one of my favorite things about this forum.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Cool, so they're going to make the rule even more nebulous and open to subjective interpretation? Surely *that* will solve the problem.

 

[BradyFTW!]

For 70+ years of NFL history everyone knew what a catch was. Fraudger and his crew got in there and no one has been clear on it since. They 'fixed' something that wasn't broken and have spent every year since trying to figure out how to get that season's toothpaste back in the tube.

While they're largely to blame, I think having HD cameras capturing every moment of the action in slow motion from a half dozen different angles is the bigger culprit. It was a lot easier to just accept the ruling on the field when the only replays you got were from weird angles in standard definition where you couldn't really tell if the ball was moving anyway.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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:



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.

It's going to be really funny next time the Pats benefit from a catch being called on the field when, based on the rules, it really shouldn't have been. People are going to lose their minds all over again.

 

[Ring 6]

I think Troy Vincent was misquoted. I'm sure he said "we worked ass backwards"

“We worked backward,” said Troy Vincent, the NFL’s executive vice president of football operations. “We looked at plays and said: Do you want that to be a catch? And then we applied that to the rule.”

Any time you trot out that genius Troy Vincent to explain things you know it will end up being a disaster.

The NFL just literally said let’s change the rule to what fans want it to be.
Can’t wait for the league to set a record for fumbles.

 

[Ross12]

Expect the Pats to throw more jump balls in the end zone where all Edelman/Gronk have to do is grasp the ball momentarily... even if they drop it after or the DB rips it out, since they don’t have to go to the ground anymore and they were in the end zone while holding the ball for a split second then it’s a TD now, lol...

 

[Ross12]

Any time you trot out that genius Troy Vincent to explain things you know it will end up being a disaster.

The NFL just literally said let’s change the rule to what fans want it to be.
Can’t wait for the league to set a record for fumbles.

That’s what I’m trying to sort out. If a guy catches it for a second but then it gets ripped out right after... that’s now a fumble. Pats D will be knocking it away and then scooping it up as a fumble from a Week 1 and people will be losing their ****.