New Rule Regarding Catches

[NoSaint]

 

 

Welcome to the new NFL where like other things that i won't get into , common sense is thrown out , no where to be found !!

 

I thought that 1) If a knee or any 2 body parts touch the ground you are down ? if that be the case then when that happens if you have control at that split second it should be ruled a catch regardless because you are down !

 

And if i recall isn't there a rule that says the ground cannot cause a fumble ? So if while in the process of a catch your knee or 2 body parts touch the ground & control has been established (which means the player is then down) if the player has control at that point then when you hit the ground (which cannot cause a fumble) you bobble or lose control of the ball the player is already down so WTF ??

 

I would love to have that discussion with the NFL officials for what ever that clarification is ???

 

Unless of coarse i dreamed these rules up or they have in fact been changed , but if they are still in the rule book something is way wrong with the NEW catch rule for the past few years !!

You have managed to account for everything except defining what control means. Which is the discussion at hand.

 

My knee touches the ground, now how do you tell if I have control?

[Beerball]

You have managed to account for everything except defining what control means. Which is the discussion at hand.

 

My knee touches the ground, now how do you tell if I have control?

The rules, as they were, IMO, were less ambiguous and much more better good. If it looks like a catch, talks like a catch and waddles like a catch...it's a catch.

[hondo in seattle]

Why would that be worse? Makes sense to me. I don't think Dez necessarily deserved that "catch". Great effort of course but not a catch.

Anyone who knows football knows that there are way too many variations of certain plays not to make a rule as detailed as some are.

 

It's not always so cut and dry.

 

Yep, it's complicated.

Yet sandlot football players seem to get it right. It's a catch if you catch the ball. It's not if you don't.

[DC Tom]

 

Yep, it's complicated.

Yet sandlot football players seem to get it right. It's a catch if you catch the ball. It's not if you don't.

 

Sandlot football players don't have to explain the call to millions of fans.

 

That's what this is about. Not the "integrity of the game." The integrity of the justification.

[NoSaint]

The rules, as they were, IMO, were less ambiguous and much more better good. If it looks like a catch, talks like a catch and waddles like a catch...it's a catch.

As long as everyone's looking for the same species that's fine. It's going to be tough, no matter what. Either your trying to govern infinite possible interactions between a person, ball and ground in a paragraph or your giving guys leeway to use judgement. The grass will always be greener on the other side, imo.

[Beerball]

 

Sandlot football players don't have to explain the call to millions of fans.

 

That's what this is about. Not the "integrity of the game." The integrity of the justification.

How's that working out?

[NoSaint]

 

Yep, it's complicated.

Yet sandlot football players seem to get it right. It's a catch if you catch the ball. It's not if you don't.

Put them in slow motion with 16 camera angles and I bet they get it wrong all the time. The leagues probably qualified as being pretty successful at this despite the imperfections.