NFL Rules That Are Nothing Short of Contradictory ?

[peterpan]

I forget which game but a player caught the ball,got two feet and a knee down inbounds, landed out of bounds, and dropped the ball. But it was reviewed and still called a catch? The ref had some wacky reason about forward progress as to why it was a catch this time and not an incomplete pass because 9 out of 10 times they call that an incomplete pass. I have never heard of forward progress being refereed to while making a play a catch before today.

 

It seems to me there is no rhyme or reason to it. They never call it consistently and it is ruining the games.

 

They did not have these problems 10 years ago.

Edited January 6, 2014 by peterpan

[The Wiz]

The one that bugs me for some reason is defensive vs offensive holding. Defensive holding is 5 yards and automatic 1st down but offensive is 10 yards. I think offensive holding should only be a 5 yard penalty considering the result of the play is nullified and pretty much any time after first down, an offensive hold is going to kill the drive which doesn't make for entertaining football.

 

It seems to me there is no rhyme or reason to it. They never call it consistently and it is ruining the games.

 

Good teams get the call, bad teams don't. That's the best I can figure.

[Beerball]

 

 

the splaination is that they havent even controlled the ball enough by nfl rules to fumble it on the attempted catch. until the catch is completed, how could you fumble or in this case score? on the running play you have established possession and are in the endzone, the play ends. on the receiving play, possession hasnt been established yet.

Sorry, breaking the plane is breaking the plane. The whole controlling the ball through the catch is BS, this particular aspect (crossing the plane) of it makes no sense whatsoever especially when viewed together with how a running play is ruled in the same situation.

[The Big Cat]

offensive pass interference should result in a loss of a down

[bobobonators]

The Wiz: though I agree a ten yd penalty for offensive holding sucks, I think the last thing this league needs is less penalty yards for the offensive side. It's hard enough to play defense in this league as is.

[Beerball]

offensive pass interference should result in a loss of a down

I'll agree with that. Since the thread is going in this direction...the penalty against an offense or defense for a personal foul should be more punitive than half the distance to the goal line (when an offense is backed up against their own goal or the defense is backed up against the opponents goal). If you're at the 18 yard line they take it to the 9 etc. For a personal foul I think that the entire yardage should be marked off (if possible) or the ball is placed at the 1 yard line.

[l< j]

I think many complaints about poor officiating are probably misdirected complaints about an overly complicated rule book. (Complaints about Patri*ts getting calls are perfectly directed, however.)

 

kj

[nkreed]

Has this been discussed?

 

During the Cincy - Indy game, just before the half a Cincy WR caught the ball on an out pattern. He was close to out of bounds, and it was hard to tell if he had full control before going out of bounds. Dalton hurried everyone to the line and spiked it to kill the cloak with 2 seconds left. On trots the Cincy kicker, ball is snapped whistle blows… Hold on, the prior play is under review. So no kick.

 

How can you run a play (the spike play) and then review the play prior to that? I thought once a play is run, there can be no review?

 

What I find to be worse about that sequence is that the Booth required a review of the play, and it was determined to be reviewable before the snap-spike, that amount of time should have been put back on the clock (from 2 seconds to even possibly 9 seconds). What's worse is that because the spike was never a play they restarted the clock upon the officials being set (luckily they gave Cincy more than enough time to get set for the field goal). Cincy should not have had to rush the last play as much as they had to.

[CountDorkula]

I thought you couldnt advance a fumble in the 4th qurater unless you recovered your own fumble? ALA what Luck did when Brown fumbled and scored a touchdown.

[The Big Cat]

I'll agree with that. Since the thread is going in this direction...the penalty against an offense or defense for a personal foul should be more punitive than half the distance to the goal line (when an offense is backed up against their own goal or the defense is backed up against the opponents goal). If you're at the 18 yard line they take it to the 9 etc. For a personal foul I think that the entire yardage should be marked off (if possible) or the ball is placed at the 1 yard line.

 

Agreed. As far as OPI goes, only a ten yard penalty for blowing up a would-be turnover seems mild, at worst. Particularly when you just get to try again.

[Optometric Insight]

Sorry, breaking the plane is breaking the plane. The whole controlling the ball through the catch is BS, this particular aspect (crossing the plane) of it makes no sense whatsoever especially when viewed together with how a running play is ruled in the same situation.

So all a team needs to do then is throw the ball over the goal line, regardless of whether or not there's someone there to catch it?

 

I thought you couldnt advance a fumble in the 4th qurater unless you recovered your own fumble? ALA what Luck did when Brown fumbled and scored a touchdown.

That's only for forth downs and inside the final 2 minutes of a half

[Taro T]

Sorry, breaking the plane is breaking the plane. The whole controlling the ball through the catch is BS, this particular aspect (crossing the plane) of it makes no sense whatsoever especially when viewed together with how a running play is ruled in the same situation.

But there is a difference between the 2. The runner has possession of the ball once it is handed to him and if he maintains that possesion until the ball reaches the goaline, it is a touchdown.

 

The reciever doesn't have possession until he has 'completed the catch.' As soon as he has possession and the ball has reached the goalline, it is a touvhdown. If simply touching the football, rather than controlling it were the rule (as you seem to be advocating), then James Hardy would still have a job.

[Utah John]

I remember that offensive holding used to be a 15 yard penalty. That was in the 60s. I don't know when it was changed to 10 yards but the reason given was that it killed too many drives, and the league wanted more offensive action and scoring.

[Kelly the Dog]

The pass completion problems are difficult but stupid. It's extremely hard to say what is a catch and what isn't sometimes even with seven angles and super slo mo, although the definition surely needs to be changed.

 

The real stupid ones are the where they place the ball rules, especially because so many plays are measured for exactly first downs. Half the time they mark it where the ball is and half the time they rule where your feet are. When a player is running out of bounds, where he steps out is almost always where they mark the ball. But if he is running out and reaches the ball out then they count the ball. If a player jumps and catches the ball near the sidelines they count where his feet were even if the ball is behind him or in front of him. That exact catch two feet in bounds they count where the ball is. Why would the middle of the field be where the ball is and most but not all of the time on the sidelines it's where your feet are. Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

[Boatdrinks]

The "ground cannot cause a fumble" rule does not apply if the ball carrier goes to the ground on his own w/out "giving himself up" via sliding and is not down by contact with a defensive player before losing control. Was absolutely a fumble by Dalton.

The sideline play in question was reviewed from the booth. It was subject to booth review as it was inside final 2:00 of half, and the booth "buzzed" the referee before the "spike play" was run by the Bengals. That is why the play was able to be reviewed even though the Bengals had seemingly "ran a play".That startegy would have worked if there was more than 2:00 on the clock and CIN managed to snap the ball before a challenge flag was thrown. Hochuli said the players progress was stopped before going O.B. , and therefore the "process" was complete in the field of play before he hit the ground O.B. Interesting interpretation, but not sure if you could call it incorrect. I hate the whole thing of "completing the process" when the player is O.B. anyways. It seems the whole "ground cannot cause a fumble" thing should apply here. The catch was made in bounds and the player lost control only when hitting the ground O.B. Either way, I think that was absolutely a catch, whatever rule interpretation you want to apply.

[Beerball]

So all a team needs to do then is throw the ball over the goal line, regardless of whether or not there's someone there to catch it?

You don't read so good, I said nothing of the sort.

 

 

But there is a difference between the 2. The runner has possession of the ball once it is handed to him and if he maintains that possesion until the ball reaches the goaline, it is a touchdown.

 

The reciever doesn't have possession until he has 'completed the catch.' As soon as he has possession and the ball has reached the goalline, it is a touvhdown. If simply touching the football, rather than controlling it were the rule (as you seem to be advocating), then James Hardy would still have a job.

If I'm a ball carrier anywhere on the field EXCEPT at the goal line I fumble if the ball is out of my possession before I am down. If I receive the ball, control it for a couple steps, cross the goal and when I hit the ground it is not a TD. That aint right.

[NoSaint]

You don't read so good, I said nothing of the sort.

 

If I'm a ball carrier anywhere on the field EXCEPT at the goal line I fumble if the ball is out of my possession before I am down. If I receive the ball, control it for a couple steps, cross the goal and when I hit the ground it is not a TD. That aint right.

 

the play is done as soon as you have possession in the endzone. are you arguing not that the catch rule is wrong, but that the breaking the plane half is whats wrong?

Edited January 6, 2014 by NoSaint

[Beerball]

The pass completion problems are difficult but stupid. It's extremely hard to say what is a catch and what isn't sometimes even with seven angles and super slo mo, although the definition surely needs to be changed.

 

The real stupid ones are the where they place the ball rules, especially because so many plays are measured for exactly first downs. Half the time they mark it where the ball is and half the time they rule where your feet are. When a player is running out of bounds, where he steps out is almost always where they mark the ball. But if he is running out and reaches the ball out then they count the ball. If a player jumps and catches the ball near the sidelines they count where his feet were even if the ball is behind him or in front of him. That exact catch two feet in bounds they count where the ball is. Why would the middle of the field be where the ball is and most but not all of the time on the sidelines it's where your feet are. Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

I've said this before, there is nothing as inexact in sports as where a football is placed after a play. A guy sometimes after running down the sidelines stops at the point he thinks the runner was down. The then runs as straight as possible toward the point where the play ended and they spot the ball.

 

 

 

the play is done as soon as you have possession in the endzone. are you arguing not that the catch rule is wrong, but that the breaking the plane half is whats wrong?

The title of the thread is: NFL Rules That Are Nothing Short of Contradictory ?

 

It is contradictory that crossing the plane does not stop the play on a pass as it does on a run.

[NoSaint]

 

 

The title of the thread is: NFL Rules That Are Nothing Short of Contradictory ?

 

It is contradictory that crossing the plane does not stop the play on a pass as it does on a run.

 

it does not seem contradictory - as once either has established possession across the plane the play is dead in both examples.

 

if the runner was trying to recover a fumble in the endzone youd be closer to apples to apples comparisons of "establishing possession"

Edited January 6, 2014 by NoSaint

[Taro T]

You don't read so good, I said nothing of the sort.

 

If I'm a ball carrier anywhere on the field EXCEPT at the goal line I fumble if the ball is out of my possession before I am down. If I receive the ball, control it for a couple steps, cross the goal and when I hit the ground it is not a TD. That aint right.

If it has been controlled for a couple of steps, then there would have been the proverbial 'football move' and the receiver is now a runner and it's a touchdown when he crosses the line.