- Joined:
- Nov 27, 2014
- Posts:
- 17,735
- Liked Posts:
- 3,594
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 22,260
- Liked Posts:
- 17,824
- Location:
- Chicago, IL.
My favorite teams
Last I heard on NFL network they were trying to get rid of the ground being a factor at all in catches. That is a good thing if they do that.
- Joined:
- Nov 27, 2014
- Posts:
- 17,735
- Liked Posts:
- 3,594
Yup, but I don't get 3-3
Les Grossman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jun 22, 2011
- Posts:
- 13,971
- Liked Posts:
- 12,782
Yeah, what the fuck does that mean?? I thought they were trying to get rid of vague interpretations lol
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 44,569
- Liked Posts:
- 39,155
My favorite teams
My *guess* is that it would have to do with being hit by a defender and the ball pops out. Making it a catch-fumble.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 41,573
- Liked Posts:
- 39,787
I am thinking they are trying to cover cases where you're wrapped up by a tackler and can't really move?
I would rephrase more like if you have 1 and 2 and 3.1 or 3.2 or 4.1 You are being held immobile by other players on the field
So if you control the ball, have 2 feet down, and are stationary because a tackler has hold of you, you have caught the ball.
I am thinking of a scenario where you catch it while getting hit/wrapped up, and then someone comes in and strips it shortly after.... need to define at what point in that sequence you have "caught" the ball.
I can't honestly say if my version is better lol
Mitchapalooza
Guest
when did this catch shit get so confusing? was it after the Megatron obvious TD being called back?
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 41,573
- Liked Posts:
- 39,787
I feel like that was the start of it in my own memory...
Mitchapalooza
Guest
yeah then the Dez play vs the Packers spiraled it out of control.
- Joined:
- Aug 20, 2012
- Posts:
- 22,260
- Liked Posts:
- 17,824
- Location:
- Chicago, IL.
My favorite teams
This one will remain a classic from the scab ref dilemma.
- Joined:
- Aug 17, 2011
- Posts:
- 41,531
- Liked Posts:
- 23,846
- Location:
- Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
Noticed that Allen Robinson thanked your post. Biased much? LOL
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 4,451
The rule currently is not bad at all. It is just poorly interpreted by some refs on the field.
This new proposed rule will not change that.
This new proposed rule will not change that.
- Joined:
- Sep 26, 2014
- Posts:
- 3,072
- Liked Posts:
- 3,055
- Location:
- Palos Hills, IL
My favorite teams
Or if refs have some skin in the games they referee.
Mdbearz
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jan 9, 2014
- Posts:
- 4,516
- Liked Posts:
- 3,220
- Location:
- Harford County, MD
Simplier is better, so hopefully they figure this out.
Another rule that I think needs to be changed is fumbling the ball through the end zone. The punishment does not fit the behavior. move it back to either the 1 yard line or where the runner last possessed the ball which ever is further, not a touchback!
And they are talking about Pass interference being a 15 yard penalty. - Give the defense some power back!
Another rule that I think needs to be changed is fumbling the ball through the end zone. The punishment does not fit the behavior. move it back to either the 1 yard line or where the runner last possessed the ball which ever is further, not a touchback!
And they are talking about Pass interference being a 15 yard penalty. - Give the defense some power back!
Mdbearz
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Jan 9, 2014
- Posts:
- 4,516
- Liked Posts:
- 3,220
- Location:
- Harford County, MD
I don't agree, the current rule is too complicated, and they never defined a football move in the current rule.
SpeedRacer
Member
- Joined:
- Mar 15, 2018
- Posts:
- 118
- Liked Posts:
- 80
3-3 is bogus. You want it simple? Than this:
1. Control.
2. Two Feet Down or Body Part.
3. Ground Can't Cause a Fumble.
Just like a running back, if receiver completes 1 and 2 above, then if it comes loose at the ground, the ball is dead there. Still a catch. If he completes 1 and 2 and a defender knocks it loose, its a fumble. Simple.
1. Control.
2. Two Feet Down or Body Part.
3. Ground Can't Cause a Fumble.
Just like a running back, if receiver completes 1 and 2 above, then if it comes loose at the ground, the ball is dead there. Still a catch. If he completes 1 and 2 and a defender knocks it loose, its a fumble. Simple.
- Joined:
- Aug 21, 2012
- Posts:
- 29,237
- Liked Posts:
- 25,214
- Location:
- USA
so if the guy reaches for the ball and is falling but hits the ground and the ball goes squirting away it is a catch....not sure what this means
- Joined:
- Jun 6, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,741
- Liked Posts:
- 7,452
- Location:
- NW Burbs
"or the ability to perform such an act"
I can see the above phrase being easily misinterpreted by each and every ref.
I can see the above phrase being easily misinterpreted by each and every ref.
Visionman
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Aug 28, 2017
- Posts:
- 7,995
- Liked Posts:
- 4,451
Better rules don't matter without better refs. What is needed is consistency in how the games are called.
SpeedRacer
Member
- Joined:
- Mar 15, 2018
- Posts:
- 118
- Liked Posts:
- 80
If a receiver lays out and ball hits ground first and pops it loses, 1 and 2 were not completed, incomplete. If he lays out and has control, then he lands on his side and rolls over and THEN the ground causes fumble, then it is completed pass and the ball is down there (if we go with my rule number 3 in the post above).
Members online NOW
- Member
- Admin
- Mod
- Donor
- HOF
Staff online NOW
-
Penny Traitorバカでも才能は一つ -
PrideisBearsBully Mod
