not sure what the answer is, but the current system is a net negative for the game IMO
seriously disrupts the game flow, and lengthens games that are already too long
That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.
- Thread starter NewEra 2014
- Start date
seriously disrupts the game flow, and lengthens games that are already too long
Ask anybody that has ever played or watched football if that was a catch and 100% of the people will answer yes. 100%. Only the NFL could complicate such a simple concept as what a catch is and make that play an incompletion. But they certainly have, and it’s a major reason why I don’t watch nearly as much NFL as I used to. Every f’in play has to be analyzed under a microscope to see if it fits the minutia of the rulebook. It’s like watching researchers in a lab.
I'm pretty sure everyone has agreed the rule is awful. Just because it's awful doesn't mean it's hard to understand. If you catch it while in the process of going to the ground, you have to maintain control of the ball through the ground. That's hardly convaluated or involving "legalese." It's dumb, but it's very simple.
No. The rule is clear. You catch the ball and establish possession in the field of play (catch, with knee on the ground, not touched). At that point you become a runner. Then all that is needed is for the tip of the ball to touch the end line...play over. Touchdown. To overturn that play is nothing short of cheating. F*cking Pats get ANOTHER call. How many is that now?
If I opined that the sun was coming up in the morning, I'm betting you would disagree. LOL dude, you are the ultimate contrarian.
Every penalty is subjective as well, the game is full of that. But at least control with 2 feet or a knee down is something everyone watching would usually agree on, unlike what we have now.
That's not the rule for what is a catch if caught while in the process of going to the ground.
12 men on the field isn’t subjective. Why do you keep apologizing for the NFL? Are you an attorney?
Why do you suck at reading comprehension? Everyone has said the rule is terrible, nobody is defending the NFL. But the rule is also well known and easily understood.
With due respect, the rule is not easily understood. The rule is in contradiction with other rules.
What rule does it contradict? If you catch it while on the way to the ground, you have to maintain it all the way through the entire collision with the ground to be a catch. Again, I hate it, but I genuinely don't know why that's difficult to understand.
When James' knee hits, he is in contact with the ground. He is in full possession of the ball. Then his elbow hits. That is a second impact with the ground. He is still in possession of the ball at that point. Anything after the initial contact with the ground is what is called a fumble.
Furthermore, a person who catches the ball at, say the five yard line, runs to the end zone and drops the ball therefore does not complete a catch according to the rule. That happens on almost EVERY passing play that the NFL suggests results in a touchdown.
Yeah when you saw that little wobble it was a problem. It could hit the ground and as long as the control is there it would have been fine, but that wobble is what was the problem. I get people being upset over it, but that isn't the first time that has been called, nor will it be the last.
That isn't the rule. The rule doesn't say you have to maintain possession through initial contact with the ground, it says you have to maintain possession all the way through going to the ground. You have to finish going to the ground and come to rest without losing possession, or it's not a catch. EDIT - just saw that the rule does say initial contact. Unfortunately precedent has already been established that "initial" means all the way through the ground. I agree this rule has been poorly interpreted based on the word "initial.".
That's just not true. This rule only applies if you are already in the process of going to the ground when you catch it. So if you caught it at the 5 and then ran it in, the rule about maintaining possession through the ground doesn't apply.
Last edited:
The rule is dumb, but it's not hard to understand. Had this been reversed and it was the Patriots who had the call reversed, these same steeler fans would be remarking on how the correct call was made.
Given the way the rule is written, a receiver who catches the ball at the five, runs to the end zone untouched and then flips the ball in the air, in the stands, to the ref, or anything does not complete the catch. That receiver did not "maintain control". Will you explain the difference?
It's quite simple. He caught the ball, and started moving down field, possession is gained prior to crossing the goal line. This is very different then catching the ball on your way down to the ground. In this case possession by rule was not gained because the ball was not secure all the way through hitting the ground.
I really don't see how hard this is to understand.
Initial contact is a problem with this play. Initial contact was with the knee. After that contact he turns his body upfield, in complete control of the ball, stretches it across the goalline, then jars the ball loose after his elbow makes contact with the ground. If the NFL is going to dwell in minutia then that minutia is going to cause them problems.
You're trying to tell me that its simple to understand. I'll raise your simple and give you simpler.
The rule says "initial contact".
- The initial contact (after his feet) was the knee hitting the ground. Initial = First. He had clear possession of the ball.
- Then his hip touched the ground. That is the second contact. He still had clear possession of the ball
- Then his elbow touched the ground. That is the third contact. He still had clear possession of the ball
Now, I know that the NFL rule is different than everywhere else. But, ...
- if a DB had touched James when his knee was down, then it's a tackle
- If a DB had touched James when his hip was down, then its a tackle.
- If the DB had touched James when his elbow was down, then its a tackle.
What part of that is hard to understand? It's so simple!
you're a bunch of johnny come latelies - my boycott started preseason, when like 12 Browns took a knee during a preseason anthem - and i haven't watched a down all year - so didn't even know about this game until i stumbled upon this thread. welcome to the boycott! it's so much fun - the best thing is you don't miss it at all after a few weeks. Can't wait to NOT watch the Super Bowl! First time since the 70s. Catch up on some Stranger Things maybe.
Last edited:
That's an interesting point. Let's assume James did not bobble the ball when he hit the ground but instead maintained possession throughout. In that scenario, if James were touched as soon as his hands were wrapped around the ball, he would've been marked down at the 1 yard line. Yet he can't have finished catching the ball yet because it's not a catch until you go all the way through the ground with your entire body, as we saw last night.
1. this is different than the normal catch and to the ground call in my opinion. The major difference is that he changed the direction of the ball mid lunge (was not falling to the ground) and you obviously need control of the ball to be able to make the move that he did. So the 'football move' part in my mind was made when he did that change of direction. At that point, it was a catch.
2. People saying they are going to stop watching football because of this must be in their 30's or younger. As anybody over that age remembers the time in sports before replay was used. That is when blatantly WRONG calls could not be overturned (PSU was screwed on several occasions when first joining the Big Ten). And if this were the 80's or 90's, the same argument would be made that it wasn't a catch by all Patriot fans and it sucks that there was no replay rule to change it. So I don't get the whole replay makes me not want to watch football anymore. As overall, replay has been great as 90% of the time it gets calls correctly, which is way better than the ZERO percent that it was before replay.
3. As for the whole catch rule that people complain about, how would you change the rule? Any time a player catches the ball and holds it for X seconds it is automatically a catch regardless of the ground or being hit by a defender. How long is X, one second, two seconds, 0.5 seconds. The ground cannot cause an incompletion? A defender hitting the ball out can or cannot? It is not a black and white issue as people want to make it out to be. These are bang-bang plays where guys have the ball for only a very short period of time before it comes out, there is always going to be gray.
2. People saying they are going to stop watching football because of this must be in their 30's or younger. As anybody over that age remembers the time in sports before replay was used. That is when blatantly WRONG calls could not be overturned (PSU was screwed on several occasions when first joining the Big Ten). And if this were the 80's or 90's, the same argument would be made that it wasn't a catch by all Patriot fans and it sucks that there was no replay rule to change it. So I don't get the whole replay makes me not want to watch football anymore. As overall, replay has been great as 90% of the time it gets calls correctly, which is way better than the ZERO percent that it was before replay.
3. As for the whole catch rule that people complain about, how would you change the rule? Any time a player catches the ball and holds it for X seconds it is automatically a catch regardless of the ground or being hit by a defender. How long is X, one second, two seconds, 0.5 seconds. The ground cannot cause an incompletion? A defender hitting the ball out can or cannot? It is not a black and white issue as people want to make it out to be. These are bang-bang plays where guys have the ball for only a very short period of time before it comes out, there is always going to be gray.
The rule doesn't say "entire body". The rule says "initial contact". James made contact with the ground three separate times. Only the initial one counts.
Right but the league does not interpret initial that way, as they've shown over the past decade. Since they are interpreting it as entire body, it's funny that he would've been marked short if he were touched initially, yet according to their rule it's not yet a catch.
What are you talking about? Where did I say I like the rule? The rule is dumb but per the rule they got it right
Sorry man. I'm 51. I'd go back to pre-replay in a heartbeat. Everything about the NFL has worn me down. I watched Pittsburgh vs Green Bay a few weeks back on a plane because I was somewhat of a captive audience. First game I watched all year. I watched some of Pittsburgh vs Baltimore. Good game. Got sucked back in a bit. Then I watched this game and the ending was a travesty. Whether the rule sucks, or whether Pittsburgh got ripped off has been debated for 4 pages in this thread. I'll take a different angle here.
Why would I watch an NFL game? Maybe as a brief escape from a workday or a work week. How does my day go? Meeting after meeting where people waste time analyzing the living shit out of everything. Guy gets home from work to his significant other, "hey honey, lets analyze the living shit out of day over dinner". Hop on Facebook. Let's analyze the living shit out of a year old election and a long simmering political divide. Aaah! But at least there's a game on tonight. I can escape for a couple hours. Oh shit, I forgot, the NFL wants to analyze the living shit out of every marginally questionable call. And they analyze the living shit out of basically the biggest play of the season, and I don't care what the rule says, they got it wrong. If that isn't a touchdown, then the rule is wrong. And what happened to, since the beginning of time, as soon as the ball crosses the plane of the goal it's a touchdown? Damn, there I go, analyzing the living shit out of it. Count me out. I've watched every super bowl since VII. I'm done. I need my escape to be a true escape and not aggravate me more.
I totally understand the interpretation of completing the catch to the ground. The problems was the interpretation of completion and the subsequent independent move to advance the ball over the goal line. The stretch was ruled a continuation of the completion attempt. There's the error. It was a separate catch with a separate extension attempt after the catch and should have been a touchdown. It was quick and I understand the call but there were NFL officials watching who did not agree with the call. There is the rub. Stupid rules cause stupid interpretations occasionally.
I don't follow the NFL and I didn't watch the game, but I had dinner tonight with two Steeler fans who were at the game and both said according to the rules it was not a catch.
My one question is why? Why would the officials cheat for NE over Pittsburgh? Both are in the hunt for the Super Bowl, both have a national following , and both are extremely popular teams with great history. Why would officials have any reason to choose NE over Pittsburgh? How does that help the NFL?
I have no idea. Goodell's favorite team? Happenstance? I read today that the Pats have had three games this year with major, game changing calls (all that went their way) in the last minute this season alone. Each time resulting in a Pats' win. That seems odd to me.
It’s amazing to me how few of you understand the laws of physics and time and space. The sun goes down in the morning - stupid rule but that’s what the book says.If I opined that the sun was coming up in the morning, I'm betting you would disagree. LOL dude, you are the ultimate contrarian.
Agree with this. Steelers are a long-standing national brand while the pats are more regional/flavor of the month. Booth officials just got a bad and obscure rule wrong...no bias just ineptitude.
