Definitely more ambiguity. Seems pretty similar to the old rule which they changed to get more consistency.Wow... they actually made it worse and added even more ambiguity into the rule.
GJGE.
Maybe I am missing something but it seems that if this is now the full language of the rule it is going to create a spike in fumbles as every receiver who gets clocked on his first additional step will clearly be making a "football" move that last year would have been irrelevant because the refs interpreted the loss of the ball that quickly as a-priori proof that the receiver did not yet really have possession. Now, they will have possession as defined by the move, thus a fumble, not an incomplete.Looks like they changed the catch rule. It is now control of the ball, 2 feet down or another body part down, and a "football" move such as a 3rd step/reaching or extending for the line-to-gain/or the "ability to perform such an act".
If they had just kept the first 2 lines, that would have cleared things up more. Now the football move part will keep it just as confusing as it was before. "Did he have the ability to extend the ball?" Well, not sure but it's a catch!!" The Jesse James catch/non-catch that benefited the Patriots spured this change as usual.
Yes. There will be more fumbles. Except at the goal line.Maybe I am missing something but it seems that if this is now the full language of the rule it is going to create a spike in fumbles as every receiver who gets clocked on his first additional step will clearly be making a "football" move that last year would have been irrelevant because the refs interpreted the loss of the ball that quickly as a-priori proof that the receiver did not yet really have possession. Now, they will have possession as defined by the move, thus a fumble, not an incomplete.
No?
but was he able to make one and chose not to? Because that's part of the rule now.... lolCalvin Johnson catch is still not a catch, right? Since there was no football move being made?
Yeah what is that about? These morons had all offseason to come up with something and this is the best they could do?but was he able to make one and chose not to? Because that's part of the rule now.... lol
No because the player established 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball. If he falls to the ground with the ball, he's fine.Wouldn't the classic two-toe-tap and fall out of bounds be an incomplete under this rule?
No more "surviving the ground". They want to get rid of it and bring back "football move". Fun.But do you still “control the ball” if you don’t survive the ground? I’m assuming yes now?
Are you sure? How does that fulfill the Part 3 "football move" of the catch requirement you posted?No because the player established 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball. If he falls to the ground with the ball, he's fine.
Toe tapping the side of the field has always been a catch. I don't think that will change.Are you sure? How does that fulfill the Part 3 "football move" of the catch requirement you posted?
Because toe tapping to establish the catch in bounds is a football move.Are you sure? How does that fulfill the Part 3 "football move" of the catch requirement you posted?
Is toe tapping in the middle of the field a football move?Because toe tapping to establish the catch in bounds is a football move.
I didn't raise the issue to suggest it wouldn't be a catch. I raised it to point out that the new rule, which was made to improve clarity, if taken literally, wouldn't correctly cover one of the NFL's signature plays.Guys, I know the NFL kinda blows but arguing whether or not the toe-tap will be allowed is kinda dumb.
but did he have the ability to make a football move? Because that is part of the rule.With regards to toe tapping on the sideline, if you toe tap and keep control of the ball all the way to the ground then I think it remains a catch. But if the receiver to taps and then the ball moves coming into contact with the ground on the way down, I think that makes it clearly not a catch since there isn't an ability to perform a football move.
Just spitballing, but what if a ST player has a snaps % clause in his contract?Catches and non-catches aside, can I make a request for a low-hanging-fruit rule change I'd like to see? If you score a touchdown as time expires in regulation, and you're either leading by any margin or trailing by 3 points or more (and therefore the game status cannot change as a result of a two-point conversion attempt), the game ends immediately - no kick or two-point conversion is attempted. I'd like to think the farce at the end of the Saints-Vikings playoff game should have clinched this change, but I've never understood why things should remain the way they are in this regard. The only explanation I've ever heard for why the current rule is in place has something to do with gambling and point spreads...but surely having a consistent rule like this actually removes any thought of manipulating the margin of victory anyway? If you want to kick an extra point after a late-game touchdown, score before the clock hits 0:00.
Why shouldn't this be an automatic change for next season?
It seems they wanted to achieve two goals: (1) Give refs "it looks like a catch" authority, and (2) Confirm the NE Patriots got away with one against the Steelers."Or the ability to perform such an act" is going to be a shitshow. They'll just have to call everything a catch.
Points scored is still a factor in some of the rarely used tiebreakers, so during the regular season you still want to give teams the chance to help themselves that way. Imagine if a team in week 17 scored a TD as time expired but missed out on a playoff spot because they weren’t allowed to kick the extra point.Catches and non-catches aside, can I make a request for a low-hanging-fruit rule change I'd like to see? If you score a touchdown as time expires in regulation, and you're either leading by any margin or trailing by 3 points or more (and therefore the game status cannot change as a result of a two-point conversion attempt), the game ends immediately - no kick or two-point conversion is attempted. I'd like to think the farce at the end of the Saints-Vikings playoff game should have clinched this change, but I've never understood why things should remain the way they are in this regard. The only explanation I've ever heard for why the current rule is in place has something to do with gambling and point spreads...but surely having a consistent rule like this actually removes any thought of manipulating the margin of victory anyway? If you want to kick an extra point after a late-game touchdown, score before the clock hits 0:00.
Why shouldn't this be an automatic change for next season?
I love your posts, man, but this...really? Even in the ultra-rare situation where the points scored tiebreaker matters, one or two points at the end of one game is so unlikely to matter as to be laughable - and if it does, if you know the rule and that you'd have to score before time expires, make sure you score before time expires.Imagine if a team in week 17 scored a TD as time expired but missed out on a playoff spot because they weren’t allowed to kick the extra point.
The farce was that everyone was celebrating a miracle victory and one of the greatest playoff endings ever, and the Saints had left or were leaving the field for their locker room...and it took the referees a good 8 or 10 minutes to call everyone back and clear the field so that Keenum could take a knee. And this is a fairly commonplace scenario after incredibly dramatic end-of-game touchdowns: everyone goes crazy, and nobody is at all bothered about the extra point, and yet the referees are made to look like killjoys and the TV commentators are left marking time and the flow of the celebration is halted artificially for no good reason at all. It's hardly a big deal in the grand scheme of things, of course...but college games in this situation end immediately, with no PAT attempt, and aesthetically the result is much more pleasing. (For example, can you imagine Auburn having had to clear the field to kick a PAT or take a knee after the game-ending "Kick Six" in the Iron Bowl a few years ago?)Also, what farce? If I recall correctly, the Vikings scored as clock expired and Keenum took a knee. Was there a nasty reaction by NO? I’m not sure I see the issue.
This is where I am on this. There was a lot of furor over the Tuck Rule as well, but you know what the Tuck Rule was? UNAMBIGUOUS. It provided a clear guideline for what previously had been a judgement call. Same thing with this rule. “That kinda feels like a catch” is not a better rule than “this is a catch; this is not a catch”.Yes. I'd prefer they leave it as is. It's consistent and pretty obvious.
The controversial catches are generally because the receiver doesn't know the rule and/or is careless. Its been in place quite a while now so there's no reason for a player not to know.
We'll see how it goes but I expect any changes will cause more confusion and inconsistency.
I also have zero faith in NFL officiating.
What if they had simply made a catch like any other play where "the ground cannot cause a fumble"? Then there would be consistency between a run and catch. Keep the two feet/one non-hand body part down after the catch part.This is where I am on this. There was a lot of furor over the Tuck Rule as well, but you know what the Tuck Rule was? UNAMBIGUOUS. It provided a clear guideline for what previously had been a judgement call. Same thing with this rule. “That kinda feels like a catch” is not a better rule than “this is a catch; this is not a catch”.
I'll stop you right there. The ground CAN cause a fumble. Always could.What if they had simply made a catch like any other play where "the ground cannot cause a fumble"?
Exactly, while I think this new proposed rule is a step in the right direction, the controversy now shifts to fumbles. So while the stakes of the "catch, no catch" replay was high, its going to be off the charts when the issues is "fumble or no catch" Since a turnover is more costly than an incomplete pass, we're going to see the same teams that argued "that was a catch" now argue "that's not control" with the exact same situation.How many more "catch" and fumbles are we likely to see?
One word: Vegas.I love your posts, man, but this...really? Even in the ultra-rare situation where the points scored tiebreaker matters, one or two points at the end of one game is so unlikely to matter as to be laughable - and if it does, if you know the rule and that you'd have to score before time expires, make sure you score before time expires.
The farce was that everyone was celebrating a miracle victory and one of the greatest playoff endings ever, and the Saints had left or were leaving the field for their locker room...and it took the referees a good 8 or 10 minutes to call everyone back and clear the field so that Keenum could take a knee. And this is a fairly commonplace scenario after incredibly dramatic end-of-game touchdowns: everyone goes crazy, and nobody is at all bothered about the extra point, and yet the referees are made to look like killjoys and the TV commentators are left marking time and the flow of the celebration is halted artificially for no good reason at all. It's hardly a big deal in the grand scheme of things, of course...but college games in this situation end immediately, with no PAT attempt, and aesthetically the result is much more pleasing. (For example, can you imagine Auburn having had to clear the field to kick a PAT or take a knee after the game-ending "Kick Six" in the Iron Bowl a few years ago?)
Only problem is he broke the plane of the goal line, so it's a TD before he juggled/fumbled it.So imagine the Jesse James play happens on the 2 yard line and Harmon recovers. All the Steeler fans that have been screaming "catch" all off-season would be screaming "he didn't have control" to keep possession.
Which is why he said if the play happened on the 2.Only problem is he broke the plane of the goal line, so it's a TD before he juggled/fumbled it.
Unfortunately the NFL might actually being smart and correcting this before it actually happened in game.Consider this scenario: Team A receives the overtime kickoff, marches down the field and kicks a field goal. On its ensuing possession, Team B throws an interception. But the player on Team A fumbles the ball, and a player on Team B scoops it up and runs for a touchdown. Who wins the game?
Under current NFL rules, Team A would win the game because Team B’s possession ended the instant a player on Team A intercepted Team B’s pass. Anything after the interception — including the fumble and the recovery and the touchdown — wouldn’t count. But under a proposed rules change, Team B would win the game because the new rule would allow the play to continue under normal rules.
I wouldn't have a problem with the change of possession via the interception immediately ending the game in mid-play. That used to be what happened on blocked conversion attempts.Man... this would have been awesome if it had happened.
Unfortunately the NFL might actually being smart and correcting this before it actually happened in game.
Then the team A player should know the rules and go down as soon as he gets the pick like smart players do any time they get a game ending interceptionI wouldn't have a problem with the change of possession via the interception immediately ending the game in mid-play. That used to be what happened on blocked conversion attempts.
In overtime Team B had its chance and blew it. Under the revised rule there's great potential (especially in an elimination game) for Team B's players to maim the Team A player with the ball as they have nothing to lose except a possible penalty/fine.
By extending the ball to the goal line, isn't it really the opposite? He doesn't seem to have surrendered his advance to me.Haha... I knew this was going to be fun...
Under the new rules, this is a catch. But, wait. There's more. Under new emphasis, this could be ruled down at the 1, because James is deemed to have surrendered his advance. Really need more clarification from Officiating Dept as to how/when this applies
Well, that's just like your definition of "surrendered his advance", man.By extending the ball to the goal line, isn't it really the opposite? He doesn't seem to have surrendered his advance to me.
Is this only applicable for defenders trying to tackle, or ballcarriers who lower their heads as they drive forward trying to gain yards? Because it's unfair to aim this only at defenders if ballcarriers get to do it with no penalty.