|
|
|
| Quote: |
| The refs, on the other hand, say that Crabtree was "going to the ground," which means he has to control the ball through his contact with the ground, which he didn't. He's "going to the ground" because he doesn't "become a runner" before he begins falling. To "become a runner" a player has to stay upright long enough to "avoid or ward off impending contact of an opponent." While that is understandable, it ignores the obvious situation of the play. Crabtree caught the ball with both feet in bounds, took a step out of bounds (thus becoming a runner), then got hit, fell to the ground and lost the ball. It would seem the refs' reasons for overruling the play only made sense after the play was over, after Crabtree had caught the ball and went out of bounds. While this isn't a touchdown or any critical play, every catch and gain matters. We've already seen the catch rules change the outcome of games, and it seems as they become even more confusing, there will surely be more instances of it. |
Collection of Most Major Catch Issues - ( New Window )
These guys are making it up as they go along
Done
To add to that I would think the Detroit player could have been flagged for pushing a guy while out of bounds which caused Crabtree to take a few steps and fall and lose possession.
"Football move", "Become a runner," - they are all ways to try and quantify "Did he have possession"
If the ball is not moving around in the runners hands and he has two feet down, it should be a catch, even if he falls to the ground and it pops out. The time element needs to be forgotten.
The NFL could do what baseball does on a check swing where the rule is written as "an intent to swing" and the umps use different methods like "going half way" or "breaking of the wrists" in determining a vague rule.
The issue, however, is that the NFL is trying to create a well-defined rule for something that has so many different instantaneous factors that can call a catch into question.
If Crabtree got shoved to the ground like that while in the field of play and the ball came out like that-- would we want that to be a fumble? I don't think I would. I certainly wouldn't have wanted Beckham's to be a fumble.
My bigger issue with the Crabtree play was that it was ruled an incomplete despite the fact taht he was contacted by one or two Lions personnel out of bounds before the ball came loose. If Crabtree is expected to maintain possession throughout the fall to the ground, then the Lions should be considered to have had 13 men on the field, or some equivalent.
So now a player has to maintain possession even through the process of being pushed into players that are not in the game? How could this possibly go wrong?
If Crabtree got shoved to the ground like that while in the field of play and the ball came out like that-- would we want that to be a fumble? I don't think I would. I certainly wouldn't have wanted Beckham's to be a fumble.
If the play a occurred in the field of play the correct call should have been down by contact, because the player is down when the ball touches the ground. If the play was slightly different in the field of play and the ball was knocked loose by the receivers own knee or something like that, then I absolutely would think it should be a fumble.
the football move makes no sense in the end zone
Where are you going???- the goal is to get into the end zone
not to advance the ball anywhere one you are in
it should be the same as sex- when you are there, you are there
there is no place to go from there......just the celebration in both cases
the football move makes no sense in the end zone
Where are you going???- the goal is to get into the end zone
not to advance the ball anywhere one you are in
it should be the same as sex- when you are there, you are there
there is no place to go from there......just the celebration in both cases
The sex comment. Is that where you got your handle?
Just a joke.
Quote:
everyone knows that
the football move makes no sense in the end zone
Where are you going???- the goal is to get into the end zone
not to advance the ball anywhere one you are in
it should be the same as sex- when you are there, you are there
there is no place to go from there......just the celebration in both cases
The sex comment. Is that where you got your handle?
Just a joke.
LOL Sex is way over-rated the tough part is getting a woman to stand by your side forever. No it hasn't been that long LOL
Some of this stuff comes under the heading of the finer points of football: how to fall, how to put the ball away, how to quickly get the ball in a high and tight position, the basics of the rule (I would bet a lot of the players don't know the rule).
It would benefit the game if the union and the owners could negotiate a week of "basic skills" camp where there could be nothing but drills and instruction on basic skills and the rules.
If he controls the ball, and gets both feet down, and the ball is knocked loose, I am completely ok with that being a fumble instead of an incomplete catch. Besides, with the 'defenseless receiver' rules in effect, how you can light up a receiver in that circumstance is pretty limited anyway.
When we look at whether a runner has fumbled the ball while going to ground, the determining factor is whether he had control of the ball the moment he hit the ground with something other than his hands or feet. The only role of judgement in the call is over control of the ball. There is no time lapse judgement, considerations of simultaneity or what the runner did or didn't do (or could have done) afterwards. It's as discrete a decision as possible.
Likewise, the rule to obtain posession should thus look at control of the ball and two feet down - period. Gsining posession should not be murkier than losing it.
When we look at whether a runner has fumbled the ball while going to ground, the determining factor is whether he had control of the ball the moment he hit the ground with something other than his hands or feet. The only role of judgement in the call is over control of the ball. There is no time lapse judgement, considerations of simultaneity or what the runner did or didn't do (or could have done) afterwards. It's as discrete a decision as possible.
Likewise, the rule to obtain posession should thus look at control of the ball and two feet down - period. Gsining posession should not be murkier than losing it.
I disagree. With this rule you would get a lot of diving catches where the player has the ball for a split second before landing and the ball coming loose. Under your rule these would be catches. I don't think we want that. For instance Beckham's one handed catch would be a catch even if when he hit the ground he lost possession.
When we look at whether a runner has fumbled the ball while going to ground, the determining factor is whether he had control of the ball the moment he hit the ground with something other than his hands or feet. The only role of judgement in the call is over control of the ball. There is no time lapse judgement, considerations of simultaneity or what the runner did or didn't do (or could have done) afterwards. It's as discrete a decision as possible.
Likewise, the rule to obtain posession should thus look at control of the ball and two feet down - period. Gsining posession should not be murkier than losing it.
I disagree. Gaining something should have a higher criteria than maintaining it. I like the rule that a player needs to maintain control of the ball when hitting the ground if the act of catching it makes him fall. To me it proves he had control of the ball.
I don't care for the football move part. That is harder to define and is open to too much interpretation.
In comment 12640010 HomerJones45 said:
Some of this stuff comes under the heading of the finer points of football: how to fall, how to put the ball away, how to quickly get the ball in a high and tight position, the basics of the rule (I would bet a lot of the players don't know the rule).
It would benefit the game if the union and the owners could negotiate a week of "basic skills" camp where there could be nothing but drills and instruction on basic skills and the rules.
First - A receiver has to control the ball all the way to the ground on a catch where he falls to the ground as part of catching the ball. That's true whether he falls out of bounds or in the field of play. I don't think anyone has ever questioned that stumbling for a few steps and then falling is the same as falling.
Second - a defender has always been able to make contact with a receiver in the field of play after a catch to knock him down and force the receiver to control the ball. It's never been in question that if a defender contacts a receiver while he's catching the ball and the receiver goes down and has the ground knock the ball loose, that the result is an incomplete pass. The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incompletion.
The two examples above are exactly what happened on the Crabtree play. Crabtree gets both toes down while controlling the ball. However the description that he takes a step out of bounds (let along 5) before he's hit is wrong. At the time the defender pushes Crabtree he hasn't yet planted a foot out of bounds. As a result of the shove, Crabtree stumbles a couple of steps, tries to use his ball hand for balance and in the process drops the ball. He's in the process of going to the ground and therefore has to maintain possession all the way thru. The fact that Crabtree hadn't intended to fall and only did because the DB pushed him is immaterial.
Here is the new rule:
In order for a pass attempt to be considered a completion the receiver must have possession of the ball with both feet in bounds. Possession shall be defined as having control of the ball with one or both hands.
How F'n hard is that???
Would it suck to have plays become fumbles? Perhaps, but at least we would all know that if the second foot lands while the ball is in the WR arms, it is a catch.
Would it suck to have plays become fumbles? Perhaps, but at least we would all know that if the second foot lands while the ball is in the WR arms, it is a catch.
Exactly. No ambiguity. No judgement call. No nest of word salad to navigate.
Would it suck to have plays become fumbles? Perhaps, but at least we would all know that if the second foot lands while the ball is in the WR arms, it is a catch.
I don't think it's quite simple as that. Under those rules, I think Landon Collins intercepts the pass by Brady. (He still had possession when his shoulder hit the ground, and typically a shoulder equals 2 feet.) I don't think we would want a rule that makes that a catch. You can imagine a lot of similar plays that I don't think you would want a catch either.
Quote:
exactly. Just define a rule that is consistent - you get two feet down and have the ball not moving in your possession, it is a catch. IOn the field of play - on the sideline, or in the end zone.
Would it suck to have plays become fumbles? Perhaps, but at least we would all know that if the second foot lands while the ball is in the WR arms, it is a catch.
I don't think it's quite simple as that. Under those rules, I think Landon Collins intercepts the pass by Brady. (He still had possession when his shoulder hit the ground, and typically a shoulder equals 2 feet.) I don't think we would want a rule that makes that a catch. You can imagine a lot of similar plays that I don't think you would want a catch either.
Yes. You are correct. I recognized this problem after I posted. I think what I originally posted should be for End Zone and Out of Bounds plays; plays in which a player doesn't have to "turn into a runner."
Someone above posted in regards to the Crabtree play that he made the catch and did his best to avoid injury after the point which makes perfect sense. The ambiguity is simply absurd. If On the sidelines or in the end zone it should be simple: Possession + 2 feet = catch
The rules need to be cleaned up but I don't think this is a catch and the OBJ play was definitely not a catch. If OBJ was at the 50 yard line that's an incomplete pass because he didn't become a runner. If he taps the sideline and falls out of bounds still an incomplete pass because he doesn't maintain possession through the ground. What am I missing?
The rules suck and need to be cleaned up but its simple, imo. Catch the ball. Hold on to it. Then theres no debate
Hell, I understand the going to the ground aspect if one is actually tackled, but the idea a person has to hold onto the ball in Crabtree's case is absolutely ridiculous.
There has to be some kind of limit to how long the process of going to the ground can take. In the Crabtree play, he had 2 feet down, then had three stumbling steps before losing control. It's conceivable that someone could take even more stumbling steps before eventually going to the ground. It wasn't like the Dez play where he jumped in the air and got two feet down while basically in the process of falling. This was just absurd.