What does this mean? The going to the ground rule is awful, you should be applauding this idea.They should just make a rule that no rule can benefit the Patriots.
It's been awful for years. Why is this year different? Why didnt they change it after the Calvin Johnson catch/no-catch? Why didnt they change it after the Dez Bryant catch/no-catch? What are they finally addressing this?What does this mean? The going to the ground rule is awful, you should be applauding this idea.
True, but it's been a problem for at least 8 years with the Calvin Johnson play and even impacted the 2014 playoffs with the Dez Bryant play. It wasn't until the NE Pittsburgh game this year, with a play that benefited the Patriots that this became so big an issue that the league felt the need to make a change.What does this mean? The going to the ground rule is awful, you should be applauding this idea.
Well done.That 15 yard limit on DPI is gonna be rough for some people. When's Flacco's retirement ceremony?
But that doesn't mean if they change the rule, this change won't benefit the Pats in 2018. It's a bad rule and if the James play finally got the NFL to address it, I think that is a good thing. But taking advantage of going to the ground isn't a strategy the Pats employ. This isn't quite like Bill Polian changing the DB rules in 2004.It's been awful for years. Why is this year different? Why didnt they change it after the Calvin Johnson catch/no-catch? Why didnt they change it after the Dez Bryant catch/no-catch? What are they finally addressing this?
It doesn't really happen all that much in college. It'll be interesting to see if this change happens.I wonder if limiting DPI to 15 yards means we'll see some intentional PI on deep passes (kind of like a professional foul in soccer)?
I don't think anyone here is saying that changing the rule hurts the Patriots moving forward. No, people are simply laughing at how transparent the league's motivations are is when it comes to changes like this. Pretty much everyone on this board predicted that this rule would be looked at in the off season because the Patriots were finally involved.But that doesn't mean if they change the rule, this change won't benefit the Pats in 2018. It's a bad rule and if the James play finally got the NFL to address it, I think that is a good thing. But taking advantage of going to the ground isn't a strategy the Pats employ. This isn't quite like Bill Polian changing the DB rules in 2004.
What are the circumstances where that's really going to happen though? If the DB is in a position to possibly make a play on the ball, he's going to try to make a play on the ball. And in most circumstances where the DB is just plain beat but can still make contact with the receiver under the current rules they should commit the penalty rather than allow the easy catch, so I don't see how this rule change shifts that meaningfully. Is there really a circumstance in football today where a defensive player has a chance to prevent a catch downfield but will probably get called for PI, and the player makes the conscious decision to allow the receiver to catch the ball rather than take the chance of being called for a penalty?I’m not sure I like the DPI 15 yards maximum rule. It would be a shame to see DBs and Safeties just tackling guys when they are out of position. I would be open to something where the Refs had some level of discretion to call it an “Intentional” DPI or something to that affect where they could make it a spot foul. I just feel like if they pass this rule, over the next 3 years we’ll be talking about how it is awful and they need to do something to fix it. I would think the last thing the NFL wants to do is limit the amount of big plays that are made.
Yes. I'd prefer they leave it as is. It's consistent and pretty obvious.It's not clear to me that removing the negative impact of #1, while non-zero, would be worth making problems out of current non-problems #2 and #3.
The rule isn't awful - there's just no good way to clearly define a catch that doesn't either lead to calls that look like catches being overturned, or balls that clearly weren't caught turning into fumbles. Its just messy.What does this mean? The going to the ground rule is awful, you should be applauding this idea.
Since Goodell publicly talked about changing the rule prior to the Super Bowl, I highly doubt that play had much, if anything to do with this possible change.People who think this was a Patriots-inspired change are incorrect. (IMO, obviously.)
I think there are many reasons, but the catalyst - aside from many folks hating the rule - was the difficulty the NFL faced in articulating/justifying the difference between the James play (no catch) and the Ertz play (catch) in the Super Bowl.
I disagree.Since Goodell publicly talked about changing the rule prior to the Super Bowl, I highly doubt that play had much, if anything to do with this possible change.
I don't know that I really agree with the rule being awful. Discussion of the catch rule is probably most easily understood/organized by addressing the flow chart that has been floating around for a couple years.It's been awful for years. Why is this year different? Why didnt they change it after the Calvin Johnson catch/no-catch? Why didnt they change it after the Dez Bryant catch/no-catch? What are they finally addressing this?
Well they've at least removed the "football move" part of that, and focus on, what is it, 2 full steps of motion? It's not totally black-and-white like a boundary call, but it's not as bad as it used to be.The "Did he become a runner" decision node is fairly subjective as well.
Not if he’s up against Julio Jones, he isn’t, or any big, sure handed receiver with jumping ability. Because 90% of time, the DB loses that fight. Any pass over 20 yards, the receiver will be tackled and that will be a good decision.What are the circumstances where that's really going to happen though? If the DB is in a position to possibly make a play on the ball, he's going to try to make a play on the ball. And in most circumstances where the DB is just plain beat but can still make contact with the receiver under the current rules they should commit the penalty rather than allow the easy catch, so I don't see how this rule change shifts that meaningfully. Is there really a circumstance in football today where a defensive player has a chance to prevent a catch downfield but will probably get called for PI, and the player makes the conscious decision to allow the receiver to catch the ball rather than take the chance of being called for a penalty?
The Huck and Suck is awful, however this was a key call in the Josh McDaniels playbook this year. There were a good number of times that they went to the Huck and Suck and hoped to get a PI call later in games. I hated when they did it.I like the 15 yard PI rule. I hate the Flacco "chuck it deep" play. To me it isn't particularly satisfying even when the Pats benefit from it, and it sucks when it goes against you. This would tip the scales a little bit back towards the defense, which I think is overdue. College doesn't seem to have an issue with DBs just tackling guys downfield if they are beat, so I am not sure why the NFL thinks this would be an issue.
Right - but it's easy to point out decision nodes that are subjective - the hard part is finding an actual fix.The "Did he become a runner" decision node is fairly subjective as well.
If LOS was the 16 or closer then yes, if not, then just a 15 yard penalty I'd imagine.I'm wondering what they're planning to do when DPI occurs in the end zone; will it still be first down at the 1?
Which basically will mean that there will be almost no downside for a DB to push a receiver that is awaiting a catch in the end zone out of bounds.If LOS was the 16 or closer then yes, if not, then still a 15 yard penalty.
College puts it at the 2.
In theory yes, but we really don't see that in college. If you could push the receiver you could possibly make a play on the ball.Which basically will mean that there will be almost no downside for a DB to push a receiver that is awaiting a catch in the end zone out of bounds.
You could also give an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on top of that for those situations, adding an extra 15 yards for the blatancy, plus if the player racks up 2 of those, he's ejected.I think this rule is going to be a mess if they do it. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bill teaches the CB's that if you're close to getting beat deep, just tackle him at the knees or push him intentionally. It's the right play to do so, despite it being bad football.
That's not for every type of unsportsmanlike conduct though, it's only for these types:You could also give an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on top of that for those situations, adding an extra 15 yards for the blatancy, plus if the player racks up 2 of those, he's ejected.
Which also benefited the Patriots, as it turned out they weren't cheating, they were just extremely disciplined.But that doesn't mean if they change the rule, this change won't benefit the Pats in 2018. It's a bad rule and if the James play finally got the NFL to address it, I think that is a good thing. But taking advantage of going to the ground isn't a strategy the Pats employ. This isn't quite like Bill Polian changing the DB rules in 2004.
Interesting...People who think this was a Patriots-inspired change are incorrect. (IMO, obviously.)
I think there are many reasons, but the catalyst - aside from many folks hating the rule - was the difficulty the NFL faced in articulating/justifying the difference between the James play (no catch) and the Ertz play (catch) in the Super Bowl. Now, I can understand the difference. And most Pats fans understood and accepted the difference. But the NFL felt vulnerable. And nothing guarantees a reactionary change more than making the NFL league office/owners feel vulnerable.
I think they will regret this modification, since it brings back an inconsistent, subjective standard of “when does a receiver gain possession.” But it will be entertaining.
Who’s missing this? Laughing at the league for changing the rules every time the Patriots win something isn’t the same thing as being upset over said rule changes.I think you guys are all missing the fact that EVERY rule change benefits the Patriots. That's what having the best coach in the league does for you - you get to figure out the ramifications of every change sooner and adapt to them faster.
LinkMaske talked to the league’s executive vice president, Troy Vinent, who said that the league will allow for some “slight movement” of the ball and will eliminate the required element of “going to the ground.” The competition committee can finalize its rules on Tuesday and then present them to the owners for approval next week. And in what is the most pleasant news for all sports fans to hear, it seems like the NFL is interested in curbing those long replays that take catches away from players who probably deserve it.
“We’ll go back to the old replay standard of reverse the call on the field only when it’s indisputable,” Vincent told Maske.
Did they ever officially change it?“We’ll go back to the old replay standard of reverse the call on the field only when it’s indisputable,” Vincent told Maske.
I noticed that too. Like everything with the NFL, the truth is malleable:Did they ever officially change it?
Or is this Vincent admitting that those in NY make up their own rules as they go along because, hey, they know better than everyone else.
The NFL recently changed the buzz words for overturning a decision via replay review from “indisputable visual evidence” to “clear and obvious evidence.” The actual standard is still the same.
And despite curious application of the standard in recent weeks, the NFL says that the standard has not changed.
The PSI spot checks were not about PSI at all, Troy Vincent says.Did they ever officially change it?
Or is this Vincent admitting that those in NY make up their own rules as they go along because, hey, they know better than everyone else.