Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11
Results 151 to 160 of 160
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    29,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    Simplification is a good thing but the post you responded to was correct on one thing. Some people and former players believe that a WR at the NFL level should be able to maintain possession of the ball through the ground and contact with it. Others believe that so long as possession occurred even if a bobble or shift happens upon impact that the catch was a catch...simply put these are two polar opposite opinions.

    I think the true test will be if the plays we think as fans should be TDs by WRs are called as such on game day.
    I was going to refer to the post you speak of, but realize that I did my share (and then some) of defending the need for a rule change. It was getting goofy how calls were being made (in my opinion). Especially in the end zone. And all that "football move" jibber jabber.


    My intention of the thread was to state that I believed that many, many folks, including many, many true experts, wanted change. And low and behold...it happened. I am clearly not the impetus for such change. But it did happen.....and I associate that with the fact that the catch rule got blurred over the years. In simple terms (and I am a believer in simplicity) catching a ball when I was growing up was hardly a confusing thing. That it was not prior to this past offseason.


    So now lets see how it is administered. In time it will settle, and most of us will be ok with it.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    hampshire,england
    Posts
    12,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    Simplification is a good thing but the post you responded to was correct on one thing. Some people and former players believe that a WR at the NFL level should be able to maintain possession of the ball through the ground and contact with it. Others believe that so long as possession occurred even if a bobble or shift happens upon impact that the catch was a catch...simply put these are two polar opposite opinions.

    I think the true test will be if the plays we think as fans should be TDs by WRs are called as such on game day.
    This is the bit I agree with. We are talking about 5-6 incidents a season and I still don't understand how someone can be confused over the rules, for example the Bryant non-catch or the Jesse James one.

    At the NFL level a catch should be maintaining control of the ball. These receivers had the ball in their hands and as they made contact with the ground it popped loose, that is not a catch..... and changing the rules to say the receivers will be awarded with a catch or potential TD is totally wrong IMO.

    I watch a lot of cricket and the catch rule is ever so simple. Here is a video I found to illustrate my point -




    If you go to 45 seconds it gives a slow motion replay. He catches the ball diving to his left and obviously lands on the ground. If the ball popped out and was grassed when he landed then it would be ruled as no catch (called a drop), and its just an obvious thing.

    If you suggested to someone that he can land on the ground and have the ball roll away on the floor yet still be given the 'catch' they would find it hilarious. Thats kinda were I am with this rule. It was simple. Catch and maintain possession when you hit the ground, whats hard to understand about that. If you can't then you shouldn't be given the catch. For the NFL to turn round and say 'its OK, you can still have the catch anyway' I find completely ridiculous.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anywhere I want on 18 wheels
    Posts
    7,544
    Quote Originally Posted by beastlyskronk View Post
    I always thought the catching rule contradicted the whole the ground canít cause a fumble rule.
    The ground has always been able to cause a fumble when the ball carrier isnít contacted by a defender.

    Itís only when the ball carrier is being tackled that the ground canít cause a fumble.

    This is irrelevant to establishing possession though.
    Negs are for Cowards. I wonít Back Down.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    29,601
    Be fun to see how things are enforced early on. In the end it's all for the better.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,345
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    I was going to refer to the post you speak of, but realize that I did my share (and then some) of defending the need for a rule change. It was getting goofy how calls were being made (in my opinion). Especially in the end zone. And all that "football move" jibber jabber.


    My intention of the thread was to state that I believed that many, many folks, including many, many true experts, wanted change. And low and behold...it happened. I am clearly not the impetus for such change. But it did happen.....and I associate that with the fact that the catch rule got blurred over the years. In simple terms (and I am a believer in simplicity) catching a ball when I was growing up was hardly a confusing thing. That it was not prior to this past offseason.


    So now lets see how it is administered. In time it will settle, and most of us will be ok with it.
    Right but when you were a kid (I'm assuming we are not that far off in age) the defensive players were not nearly as heavily restricted. Again for clarity - the game then was not heavily skewed towards offense.

    I've always liked change in sports. Imo it makes you think and compare old vs new.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    5,345
    Quote Originally Posted by bronx_2003 View Post
    This is the bit I agree with. We are talking about 5-6 incidents a season and I still don't understand how someone can be confused over the rules, for example the Bryant non-catch or the Jesse James one.

    At the NFL level a catch should be maintaining control of the ball. These receivers had the ball in their hands and as they made contact with the ground it popped loose, that is not a catch..... and changing the rules to say the receivers will be awarded with a catch or potential TD is totally wrong IMO.

    I watch a lot of cricket and the catch rule is ever so simple. Here is a video I found to illustrate my point -




    If you go to 45 seconds it gives a slow motion replay. He catches the ball diving to his left and obviously lands on the ground. If the ball popped out and was grassed when he landed then it would be ruled as no catch (called a drop), and its just an obvious thing.

    If you suggested to someone that he can land on the ground and have the ball roll away on the floor yet still be given the 'catch' they would find it hilarious. Thats kinda were I am with this rule. It was simple. Catch and maintain possession when you hit the ground, whats hard to understand about that. If you can't then you shouldn't be given the catch. For the NFL to turn round and say 'its OK, you can still have the catch anyway' I find completely ridiculous.
    Are you trying to compare a non contact sport like cricket to football? Cricket is far closer to baseball then it is football.

    The Jesse James catch and no catch ruling came down to was it a catch and fumble or just not a catch. The addition of contact makes football a more complex ruling just because of the nature of the game.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    hampshire,england
    Posts
    12,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich_C View Post
    Are you trying to compare a non contact sport like cricket to football? Cricket is far closer to baseball then it is football.

    The Jesse James catch and no catch ruling came down to was it a catch and fumble or just not a catch. The addition of contact makes football a more complex ruling just because of the nature of the game.
    Its comparable because the rule now says that as long as the player has caught the ball it doesn't matter if he loses control when he hits the ground, so the Dez Bryant non-catch would now be ruled a catch. I believe that is wrong and that a player should have to maintain control when he hits the ground..... or gets hit by a defender.

    IMO some of the Goodell rule changes have been to the detriment of the game, and I think this is another one they have got wrong. Sometimes the NFL seems to change rules for the sake of it.

    I hate NE and really wanted Pittsburgh to beat them, but if Jesse James would have been given a TD it would have been a complete farce. Common sense made that an easy call. If the new rule changes give THAT as a TD then its a complete joke.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    29,601
    Quote Originally Posted by bronx_2003 View Post
    Its comparable because the rule now says that as long as the player has caught the ball it doesn't matter if he loses control when he hits the ground, so the Dez Bryant non-catch would now be ruled a catch. I believe that is wrong and that a player should have to maintain control when he hits the ground..... or gets hit by a defender.

    IMO some of the Goodell rule changes have been to the detriment of the game, and I think this is another one they have got wrong. Sometimes the NFL seems to change rules for the sake of it.

    I hate NE and really wanted Pittsburgh to beat them, but if Jesse James would have been given a TD it would have been a complete farce. Common sense made that an easy call. If the new rule changes give THAT as a TD then its a complete joke.
    We can start debating this again, but I am 100% sure they made the right decision, to change the rule. I know you will not see it that way, but it's done. Heads came together.....rule needed to be changed...it was. Good on them.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    hampshire,england
    Posts
    12,345
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    We can start debating this again, but I am 100% sure they made the right decision, to change the rule. I know you will not see it that way, but it's done. Heads came together.....rule needed to be changed...it was. Good on them.
    They have changed many rules over the last 10 years to help the offense and hinder the D, this is just another example of that, making it easier on receivers.

    I don't mind making the game more offense friendly to a degree but not to the extent Goodell has done.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    29,601
    Quote Originally Posted by bronx_2003 View Post
    They have changed many rules over the last 10 years to help the offense and hinder the D, this is just another example of that, making it easier on receivers.

    I don't mind making the game more offense friendly to a degree but not to the extent Goodell has done.
    Bronx...you and I will probably never meet on this one, but it's fine for us to discuss...at length. For me this is not about creating more O, but that's just me. I certainly do not like all rule changes, especially over the years the unnecessary penalties for playing good, tight D. If I had my way, there would be less D penalties on pass coverage and when it comes to late hits on QBs. They've gone to the nth degree in some cases, in my books. When a defender learns how to play the game fairly all his life, and then is getting nailed for gently pushing a QB just after being in acceleration mode, is ridiculous! Same goes for PIs on long bombs, where 2 players are equally at fault. Those are huge penalties, and for what? Then again, if you are game planning, you throw long passes, because the benefits usually far outweigh the potential negatives. I mean, say you have a 50 pass turn into a no return interception. That's better than a punt. But throwing a long pass has more than one positive....you might complete it, and you have a decent chance at a interference call....for the same yardage.


    Back to my take.....when I see a player make what appears to be a catch, and some players, some analysts, some coaches....look puzzled, I say it needs change. They have made football moves and hitting the ground stuff of legal confusion. I know some of you don't like it (when I refer to the past), but growing up, my group knew what a catch was, and what it wasn't...and we didn't even have much debate around it. But since those infamous rulings on Calvin Johnson, even Dez Bryant (which I was happy about, but wasn't quite sure why myself), I, like many, many others, no longer understood the simple aspect of catching and retaining the ball.


    I am sure you can quote a number of folks that think otherwise, but the majority say it was over complicated. And as such, it changed.
    Last edited by CanDB; 08-10-2018 at 10:52 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •