Jump to content

New Catch Rule


Recommended Posts

I don’t think anything was wrong with the rule last year but people just couldn’t understand the going to the ground part...I don’t think that it needed to be changed to satisfy the fans bc there was a definite way to say whether there was a catch or not..I don’t think this will do anything but cause more confusion and more debate on what a catch is when it was clearly defined before

 

What do y’all think about the new rule that might be coming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll tell you once I go and read up on it to see what you're even talking about. As far as the rule as it has been, it's stupid. The ground shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not a catch is made. It wasn't like that for a long time and everyone knew exactly what a catch was or wasn't. But after the Bert Emanuel play in the 1999 playoffs they changed the rule and since then it's a total mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proposed rules defining a catch are:

1. Control of the ball. 
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as: 
» 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 Cowboysreceiver Dez Bryant's against Green Bay in the 2014 playoffs, or Steelerstight 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, athell said:

The proposed rules defining a catch are:

1. Control of the ball. 
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as: 
» 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 Cowboysreceiver Dez Bryant's against Green Bay in the 2014 playoffs, or Steelerstight 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.

Sounds good to me. I massive step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Falconsfan567 said:

Sounds good to me. I massive step in the right direction.

Yeah, it is a positive step forward in un-f*cking the catch rule.  The whole surviving the ground thing was awful.  I am curious if a ball moving (in a player's hands, against their body, etc.) will constitute "control" or not though.  It's situational no doubt, but in my world you can have control while the ball moves a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Falconsfan567 said:

Sounds good to me. I massive step in the right direction.

See I disagree..going to the ground should determine the catch if you can’t control it...just changing a rule to cater to the fantasy football fans crying bc their guy had a catch taken away...what would be an incomplete pass could now be a fumble and will create more of a mess..the rule, while tough, was right imo and this is just going to make things crazier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, athell said:

Yeah, it is a positive step forward in un-f*cking the catch rule.  The whole surviving the ground thing was awful.  I am curious if a ball moving (in a player's hands, against their body, etc.) will constitute "control" or not though.  It's situational no doubt, but in my world you can have control while the ball moves a bit.

I agree. If you have the ball, even if you bobble it just a little bit but you've still got it under control then it's a catch and possession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, athell said:

The proposed rules defining a catch are:

1. Control of the ball. 
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as: 
» 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 Cowboysreceiver Dez Bryant's against Green Bay in the 2014 playoffs, or Steelerstight 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.

So basically how it was enforced my whole life until about 10 years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Insano said:

See I disagree..going to the ground should determine the catch if you can’t control it...just changing a rule to cater to the fantasy football fans crying bc their guy had a catch taken away...what would be an incomplete pass could now be a fumble and will create more of a mess..the rule, while tough, was right imo and this is just going to make things crazier

First off, fantasy football has nothing to do with my opinion so you can get out of here with that mess. Secondly, the ground shouldn't have any say at all in what's a catch and what isn't a catch. That's downright stupid. This right here is a touchdown. I don't care how in the world you want to slice it. The fact that it wasn't because of the whole "ground ********" was downright ******** and I'm so glad the NFL is attempting to do away with such BS.

There's many other plays just like it that were overturned and shouldn't have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captain Insano said:

See I disagree..going to the ground should determine the catch if you can’t control it...just changing a rule to cater to the fantasy football fans crying bc their guy had a catch taken away...what would be an incomplete pass could now be a fumble and will create more of a mess..the rule, while tough, was right imo and this is just going to make things crazier

So during the last minute of  the game with the Steelers vs the pats where the te reached out to the end zone . Do you see that as an incomplete pass?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I think of why this is necessary, I remember two years ago when Freeman caught a ball on the two yard line and turned and reached the ball over the goal line. He was brought down and the ball came loose and it was ruled a fumble. It makes no sense that if he had it knocked loose while on his feet, the same play and move would have resulted in a touchdown. If I could remember who we played, I would have made a gif of the play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JayOzOne said:

When I think of why this is necessary, I remember two years ago when Freeman caught a ball on the two yard line and turned and reached the ball over the goal line. He was brought down and the ball came loose and it was ruled a fumble. It makes no sense that if he had it knocked loose while on his feet, the same play and move would have resulted in a touchdown. If I could remember who we played, I would have made a gif of the play.

Yeah, I was trying to find the video of that one too but couldn't. It was the Redskins game that went to OT that the Falcons won on the pick 6 by Alford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

First off, fantasy football has nothing to do with my opinion so you can get out of here with that mess. Secondly, the ground shouldn't have any say at all in what's a catch and what isn't a catch. That's downright stupid. This right here is a touchdown. I don't care how in the world you want to slice it. The fact that it wasn't because of the whole "ground ********" was downright ******** and I'm so glad the NFL is attempting to do away with such BS.

There's many other plays just like it that were overturned and shouldn't have been.

Especially when it should be as soon as the ball crosses with possession the plane its a td.  Dead ball.  Rack em.

Edited by athell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doobs said:

So during the last minute of  the game with the Steelers vs the pats where the te reached out to the end zone . Do you see that as an incomplete pass?

Yes I do..I called it as soon as it happened..people wanted to compare the Eagles TE plat in the SB to it but it was totally different..the te for the Steelers was going to the ground while making the catch so has to maintain the process of the catch to the ground..the Eagles guy clearly had the ball, took 2 steps and dove to the endzone..two totally different plays and clearly called

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

20 years ago, but yeah.

 I can still hear all of the announcers of the 80’s and 90’s talking about the 3rd step and making a football move until replay technology got so good that the powers that be started questioning themselves, over analyzing things. 

Edited by Black Francis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Captain Insano said:

See I disagree..going to the ground should determine the catch if you can’t control it...just changing a rule to cater to the fantasy football fans crying bc their guy had a catch taken away...what would be an incomplete pass could now be a fumble and will create more of a mess..the rule, while tough, was right imo and this is just going to make things crazier

no, because the way it was, a WR could catch a ball and extend across the goal line and lose the ball when he hits the ground, and voila, no catch. a RB who was handed the ball can reach across the line with it TOUCHDOWN, regardless of whether it comes loose in any part of the play afterwards....

add in the stupidity of the WR scenario being at the pylon, and the ball goes out of bounds, not only is it NOT a TD, it's now the other teams ball on the 20 because it became a touchback when it went through the end zone

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Captain Insano said:

Yes I do..I called it as soon as it happened..people wanted to compare the Eagles TE plat in the SB to it but it was totally different..the te for the Steelers was going to the ground while making the catch so has to maintain the process of the catch to the ground..the Eagles guy clearly had the ball, took 2 steps and dove to the endzone..two totally different plays and clearly called

That's the thing though. He didn't go to the ground to make the catch. He had already made the catch and was stretching for the goal line and then lost the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...