With all the different rules and situations I think we all agree this leads to more problems.
Would something as simple as possession for at least 2 full seconds and two feet down (1 knee, leg, butt, lower arm, etc.) be too simplistic? As soon as that ball is securely in the athlete's hand the clock starts. It doesn't matter if it is one or two hands. The ball needs to be secured for a full 2 seconds and there needs to be some contact with the ground. The clock can start if a player is in the air. It doesn't matter if a player is going to the ground or not. It doesn't matter if it is in the end zone. It is clear cut. If the ground causes the fumble then so be it but I have a hard time imagining a player getting possession of a ball for 2 full seconds and still being in the air. If it is a sideline play them the clock can run even if the player is out of bounds. Like if it is a bang bang play on the sideline. The player has the ball for half a second gets both feet down and then still finishes out the 2 full seconds after he is put of bounds.
What problems do you see with making it this simple?
You need a rule where time is eliminated....but the rule has to be different from the endzone vs the field of play....
You need a rule where time is eliminated....but the rule has to be different from the endzone vs the field of play....
Tough to have different rule in end zone if it takes away defenders ability to knock ball out of receivers hands.
Why should it? Were they looking for uses for their super slow motion cameras?
Why should it? Were they looking for uses for their super slow motion cameras?
It's kind of like the tuck rule. Everyone knew what a Fumble vs Pass was until they brought that into play. They changed that rule back and they will change the catch rule eventually, but it could take years since the rules committee gods are loath to admit mistakes.
The issue is coming up with better (easier to understand) rules than the ones they are replacing.
You need a rule where time is eliminated....but the rule has to be different from the endzone vs the field of play....
I don't know there would be a lot of 'fumbles' if two feet and simultaneous but momentary control was established but the ball then dropped.
Look at the interception in the endzone, of the Atlanta Indy game....ball is deflected, and the Indy linebacker stretches for it and catches it....as he falls, nose of the ball hits the ground, there is some movement in his hands....even the announcers say that will be overturned....NOT BY THESE REFS!
How many times have we seen receivers catch balls cleanly, but because their hand was not under the ball and the ball touched the ground, it's called incomplete.....it's not just the guys on the field, it's the guys in the booth also making these decisions,,,,
Here are some of the unintended consequences of such a rule change.
1) A player catches the ball, runs 5 yards for a touchdown, and spikes the ball in celebration. Upon further review, the pass was incomplete.
2) It would put player safety at risk because nobody would know when the play was over. You would have receivers being tackled, then defenders piling on them trying to cause an incompletion. Would the refs blow the whistle when the player was down, or after the 2 seconds to demonstrate control of the catch?
3) This would impact the 2 minute hurry up offense. Receivers wouldn't be able to toss the ball quickly to the official, because they would need to make sure they are holding on to it the required 2 seconds.
4) The hook and ladder play would become a lot less risky. You would no longer be risking a fumble with the quick lateral, but only an incomplete pass. You could theoretically have a play where there were multiple laterals and still no receiver actually has the ball for a full 2 seconds.
2 seconds is a really long time, but I don't think you can have any rule as simple as the receiver must have the ball controlled for x.x seconds.
If the ball gets stripped by the defender after two feet down with possession in the field of play, it's a fumble. If this happens in the end zone, it's a dead ball the instant the second foot hits the ground: TD.
Any of this other horseshit of a "football move" or "position to run" or some vaguely-defined amount of time passing takes (what should be) one of the basic rules of the game and leaves it open to interpretation and speculation, so that we get the Tate/Lions play called a TD one week and the OBJ play overturned from a TD to an incompletion another week.
Seems like a joke that games are decided on the basis of wishy-washy rules that are arbitrarily enforced.
Adding time to it will cause an infinite amount of problems with even more room for referee interpretation.
This is how they get the notion of a football move or time to required to make a football move. The thinking is that the process of catching the ball is over, and now the players is starting a new act. The problem is that in real life it's not quite so simple.
If the ball gets stripped by the defender after two feet down with possession in the field of play, it's a fumble. If this happens in the end zone, it's a dead ball the instant the second foot hits the ground: TD.
Agree, but I'd add that in addition to catching the ball cleanly (no movement of ball), 2 feet down, rule would require receiver to bull the ball in to his body IF the catch is in the field of play (player falls). Pulling the ball in is much easier to spot by official, and it establishes possession/control.
If the receiver does NOT pull the ball in and/or falls out of bounds or into the EZ, then he has to maintain possession when he falls to the ground... same as current rule.