Options
The NFL Competition/Rules Committee re-defines a catch and now working on new tackling rule
Justacommeman
Posts: 22,847 ✭✭✭✭✭
Basically if it looks like a catch it’s a catch.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
0
Comments
they left the ambiguity in the rule
Any change is better than what is in place
So now most notably the Calvin Johnson, Dez Bryant and Jessie James plays would all be catches next year
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000922415/article/catch-rule-recommendations-revealed-ahead-of-vote
The NFL's attempt to fix the catch rule took another major step forward.
NFL Senior Vice President of Officiating Al Riveron announced Wednesday the Competition Committee will recommend simplifying the language of the catch rule. The proposed changes will be presented next week at the Annual League Meeting.
The proposed rules defining a catch are:
» A third step;
» Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
» Or the ability to perform such an act.
The key change in the proposal would eliminate the frustrating going-to-the-ground element of the rule that caused catches to be overturned, like Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant's against Green Bay in the 2014 playoffs, or Steelers tight end Jesse James' reversed TD against the Patriots this past season.
The proposed change won't eliminate all the gray areas, nullify all confusion or completely wipe away controversial calls. The changes could also lead to more fumbles by receivers. However, it's the first significant step in the NFL trying to sort out a rule that has irritated and confounded fans, players and coaches alike for years.
Maybe they can bring Romo out of the booth and resume the Dallas/GB playoff game like they did with the pine tar game, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
ability to perform such an act is the idiot part that invalidates the whole thing. Leave that off and we are pretty good. That is a judgement call and a stupid one.
Me I would say review the plays without slow motion and decide. Slow motion caused half the issues this year. Looking at a play frame by frame for a slight motion of the ball should be outlawed
Control of ball and landing with two feet or another body part are already two football moves.
3. Football move has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.
So when Chris Carter used to catch the ball at the sideline with both feet in bounds while falling out of bounds would no longer be catches?
WTF?
Wow, how did I do that?
Pound sign before the number.
1
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
It was worth saying in large type!
yeah, my world will be just fine if they get rid of the "Football Move" terminology. I have to believe that there's a powerful member of the Rules Committee that is pushing that and absent him we will be saddled with it.
They were before!
They should just award that game to Dallas and concede Dallas the SB win.....because they would have gone ahead and won the SB that year.....in spite of having Romo as QB...tough call though on Romo.
Nah. Dallas would have still lost to GB. There was a ton of time left
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I didn't think the rule needed changing. Thought it was perfectly clear before (seriously). I think this rule is a step back.
the way the rule was written struck me as an attempt to explain in detail just what a catch was, as if players, officials and lifetime fans don't know it. this "step back" seems a logical attempt to remove burdensome language that is the result of video replay and the ability to watch an entire game frame-by-frame to see what took place.
that concept is a farce and unsustainable.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are stinking lawyers involved, assisting with writing these rules. As we all know, lawyers complicate things that shouldn't be complicated.
Please forgive my ignorance here, I have only been watching football since about 1967. (This could be the problem, football made more sense then)
Question 1; A receiver makes a catch with both feet in the field of play or in end zone right next to side/end line. Ball is definitely secured and both feet (not addressing the "other body part") definitely in bounds, players momentum immediately takes him out of bounds. No catch?
PLEASE explain why a player has to make a "football move" after making a catch and keeping both feet in bounds. Makes ZERO sense to me.
The Dez Bryant catch was an absolute thing of beauty in my eyes (I don't care about who was playing in that game btw) and I just can't see the logic in ruling it a no catch. He didn't have the time or space to make an additional, (unnecessary) move.
Question 2; In a game last year Vikings receiver Adam Thielen jumped up and caught a ball in the end zone with a defender right next to him, he had possession of the football, he came down with one (right) foot in the end zone as the defender was hitting him (no pass interference) he fell to the ground, hitting his left knee on the turf, in bounds. Defender continued his hit/tackle and Thielen's elbow hit the ground (in bounds, if that even matters) and ball then came out of his grasp. No catch.
In my mind, he should have been ruled down as soon as his knee hit the ground and a good catch had been made. There was no "bobbling/juggling" of the ball until his elbow hit the ground. Just how long does he have to hang onto the ball here, until he gets to the sideline and hands it to the coach?
I am assuming the old rule "the ground can't cause a fumble" no longer applies? At least in the End Zone?
NFL please stop screwing up the game.
1). catch.
2). sounds like a catch but I think I'd need to see it, too much going on.
2). It WAS pretty straight forward, just wanted to give all the pertinent facts. Ruling was he didn't hold onto the ball, I didn't understand why it wasn't ruled that he was down when his knee hit the ground, he had complete possession at that moment.
Do you know if the old rule about the ground not being able to cause a fumble is still in effect?
Different in End Zone?
if I take it just as you described I'd think it should be a catch and TD.
Me too.
What about if Roger Goodell is sitting somewhere during the game, and the receiver gives him the finger on a play being reviewed. Is that considered a football move?
The thing is Dez caught the ball even by the old rule. He caught the ball...had control....and made a football move taking steps and lunging for the endzone...and by doing so was a runner and DID NOT have to survive the ground.
If only that had happened it would I have been a catch
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Tell me what part that you "think" didn't happen!
Looked good to me, I too would like to know why anyone (other than Cowboy haters) would think it wasn't a catch.
Most of it actually because he was never ever a runner
“If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”
“At the time he lands and the ball hits the ground, it comes loose as it hits the ground, which would make that incomplete,” Steratore said. “Although he repossesses it, it does contact the ground when he reaches, so the repossession is irrelevant.”
Or as Tony Dungy tweeted at the time and I agree with 100%
Even though 99% of people would say Dez play should be a catch--including me--it has been consistently called no catch for the last 5 years.
The rule sucks and thank goodness they are changing it. That game cost me a fortune on a bet as I was rooting the Cowboys to win. I knew immediately as I saw it that It would be reversed in which it was. They had no choice really.
Time to let go
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Sorry, Dimeman, wasn't a catch then and the rule change is too late to make it a catch now. Your failure to comprehend the rule as written is unfortunately not enough to make it a catch, either. The head of NFL officiating has explicitly stated it was not, by rule, a catch, for crying out loud, lol. Your erroneous assertion is akin to someone insisting that one of the coins in your sigline is actually a quarter and not a dime.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Dez was never balanced. From the second his hands touched the ball, he was headed toward the ground. At no time could he possibly have stopped that. Therefore, he had to hang onto the ball when he hit the ground. He didn't.
Also, to anyone using the phrase "football move" in regard to the old/current rule - that phrase isn't in the rule.
its ok to complain about what you think is a bad call for a little while . I mean while the games is still happening maybe the next day but its been years get a grip.
A: the game is over and they are not going to award the win to your team
B: its only sports its not actually important
I am an official member of the Dallas Cowboys haters club...but that was obviously a catch.
There's no football rule that says a receiver must have control of the football with two hands. Bryant clearly caught the pass, had possession, and while falling to the ground, he attempted to break the plane of the goal line for a touchdown with the football firmly grasped in one hand. With the instant replay, a blind man can see that.
Yes, Bryant fumbled the football, but quickly recovered it in the end zone, which should have been ruled a touchdown.
The membership in the Dallas Cowboys haters club requires me to be happy when the Cowboys get screwed, and I was happy, but nevertheless, the Cowboys got screwed.
Well, evidently that's the case because the ref overturned it.
My premise is why aren't NFL wide receivers then coached up so that Bryant would be well aware of this rule, and would have strictly focused on making the catch rather than reaching for the goal line with the football in one hand having a high risk of losing control of it, therefore being ruled incomplete.
I realize football players can make mistakes in the heat of the moment, but considering the circumstances, if Bryant was cognizant of this rule, then he could have simply caught the football and fell to the ground.
Perhaps then it's poor coaching not adequately informing and teaching players about the new rules. Or perhaps it's the damn NFL rules committee making chit so confusing that even the refs have trouble at times trying to interpret it.
Back to the "catch"...the RULE should be...if any new rule lacks clarity, then the instant replay official on the field shouldn't be made to interpret it, and so the ruling made on the field at the time of the play should stand.
No Dez is a dbag glory hound , a tireless self promoter , every wide receiver knows the rules . Whenever you see that stupid reach for the goaline BS its because the player wants to be shown making a big play on the TV news. I'd fire everyone that does that. It happened to that idiot on the steelers against the pats this year. Secure the ball and never mind trying to get on sports center ,no one watches ESPN anymore anyway.
Well, you've certainly got a good point there about Dez Bryant.
The NFL is just so convoluted anymore with their rule changes and interpretations. In one aspect they want more scoring and in another aspect they seem to want less scoring.
i don't mind the rule changes regarding the safety of the players, but the other garbage such as this, making the extra point longer, and other nonsense, and on top of all that, allowing a malignancy like Colin Kaepernick to fester...while I am still very happy about the Eagles Super Bowl win, i'm probably not as jubilant as i would have been ten years ago.
The NFL with its ratings decline is in a little bit of trouble, albeit they are still very strong. But there's a lot of nonsense going on right now, and here's hoping they just stop trying to fix what isn't broke...and fix what truly is broke such as these malignant protests.
Speaking of rules, there were already strict rules in place to prevent what was happening this past season with the NFL protests, but Roger Goodell didn't have the stones to enforce them.
Perhaps it would be better if catch/no catch became a play not reviewable. That would probably improve the percentages of correct calls.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
That's what the new rule is attempting to do. The old rule obviously wasn't very popular, though it was still a rule.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I don't mind the "disagrees", I knew i'd get some on that post. LOL
Hope my point was understood though, and I'll say it bluntly - these new catch rules SUCK, and are ridiculous. i still say the Bryant play was a catch by any reasonable interpretation and definition of a football catch...except by the inept, incompetent, stupid rules committee which for some inexplicable reason that only they in their dopey minds know, make these pathetic new rules.
There are lots of crappy rules in all walks of life that are on the books and are still enforced. This is just one of the them. It was correctly enforced.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
To get to the crux of the matter, the NFL is a business organization designed to make money, and everything else, and I do mean everything else is a distant second. For some weird reason, they must think all this controversy is good for them as far as making money is concerned, because it sure isn't good for the game as far as most fans are concerned.
The NFL truly needs to smarten up, get back to what made them so popular, or something such as the XFL could take root.
or something such as the XFL could take root.
Yeah, that would be quite a threat, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Looks like better late then never. They have addressed it
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Well, the XFL isn't the AFL from the 1960's...not yet anyway. We shall see.
For sure, the NFL has allowed the XFL to get its foot in the door of professional football, that isn't debatable. There is a lot of interest out there in the XFL with the public, mostly because of the NFL shooting itself in the foot.
A case could be made either way about the XFL surviving.
One thing for sure, it will be an interesting year for professional football in 2020. I don't think the 100 million dollars initial seed money for the XFL is nearly good enough. If a lot more money comes in from new investors and/or owners with deep pockets, the NFL owners for sure won't be LOL.
Its a what have you done for me lately world people , lead , follow , or drop dead . If its tradition you want go to church on Sunday
if its football then give me 3 leagues and I'll choose the one that suits me.
I wonder if He Hate Me can still play ?
No one will care about the XFL. That is th> @stevek said:
The first incarnation of the XFL was a colossal failure. That is not debatable. This one will be nothing more than a novelty at best. No one wants to watch minor league football. There are factors (like CTE and the effects of head injuries at lower level of football) that may affect the long term outlook for professional football (that much is possible, if not probable), but anyone who believes that a start up football league like the XFL poses any threat to the NFL (see its previous history for confirmation) is only fooling themselves.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
If I'm not mistaken, the inaugural XFL Championship game had a slightly better rating than a Seinfeld rerun that night, but don't quote me on that..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I'm not sure that you have been paying close enough attention to just how hissed off many NFL fans are out there. And just how far down the NFL TV ratings have gone - it was a marked decline by any reasonable standard.
We all know the NFL is still very strong. However anyone who thinks the NFL is as strong as they used to be is only fooling themselves because the facts clearly state otherwise.
So all that we already know. The question is will the fans discontent with the NFL get worse in the upcoming season, or will the NFL do something about it?
Will the XFL turn out to be no threat or will they be another American Football League in the making? And we all know the differences between the 1960's and now. It's of course considerably more difficult to start a new professional football league now than it was then.
One thing I think the new XFL should do, is change the name. I'm surprised they are using that same XFL name. Frankly, I think by the time it begins in 2020, they will come up with a new name for their league other than XFL.
I'm still a big fan of the NFL, but these various issues need to be addressed, and need to be addressed HARD. Very few NFL fans want to see political protests at the games or on the games shown on TV - it's tiresome and annoying. Colin Kaepernick should have been cut the first time he kneeled. The NFL allowed the problem to fester and are suffering the consequences. Roger Goodell should unequivocally state that any player disrespecting our national anthem or flag at any NFL game will be cut, and if a number of players quit because of that, then let them quit.
Frankly speaking, I think the whole social protest issue is fading from relevance. I know guys like SteveK are still very upset about it, but to be perfectly frank, the vast majority of fans have seemingly moved on. If anything, it's the media that keeps this topic in the news at all. Steve, even you, who finds that aspect offensive, is still following the league as closely as ever, posting more in depth opinions here on topics like draft strategy and the rules committee than an ESPN studio host. I know Glicker is not watching as much, but the NFL raked in a record 14 BILLION dollars in revenue last season (which is actually UP from 2016's total of 13 billion) and the brand is stronger than ever. Those are facts, not just opinions. (TV ratings are a very misleading gauge for measuring viability in the current digital age, as more and more people no longer even subscribe to cable TV to obtain their video content.) The XFL will be irrelevant within 3 seasons (if that). That's just the reality of the situation.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
http://deadline.com/2018/02/super-bowl-ratings-eagles-patriots-this-is-us-nbc-1202278181/
The official parade in Philly for the 41-33 triumph over the New England Patriots isn’t until February 8 but there is certainly one element of Super Bowl LII that wasn’t champion – the ratings
With 103.4 million watching, last night’s game on NBC from Minneapolis is down 7% from the total set of network eyeballs from the 2017 Super Bowl. A steeper fall than even the declining the stock market today, that’s the worst the Super Bowl has done since 2009 when the Pittsburgh Steelers 27-23 defeat of the Arizona Cardinals scored 98.7 million viewers.
The ratings for the Super Bowl clearly disagree with your comments. AND...this Super Bowl was between two major market teams, and was an exciting game start to finish, and had the household name of Tom Brady and great Patriots team as an added attraction.
All that and yet still a ratings decline? Sorry Tim, but you're simply not facing the overall facts about this situation.
I would suggest you reread my post above regarding the measurement of TV ratings in the digital age, Steve, LOL..
It's not just the NFL~TV ratings, as measured by traditional methods, are down across the board. You might want to do some research on the reasons why.
In addition, as I stared above, league revenue topped a record 14 billion last season. I don't think any NFL owner is staying up at night, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.