That replay cannot be viewed in slow motion. Watch it at live speed. If you can't make a definitive determination from what was ruled on the field then the call stands.
"Going to the ground, it looks like that’s going to be eliminated."
Then:
"Under the new rule will mean that once the receiver has control of the football, any slight movement in the receiver's hands viewed during a replay review would not be an incompletion. If the receiver is in the process of going to the ground, they will have to maintain control of the football while on the turf for the catch to be ruled as complete."
What am I missing? I don't see how this doesn't add more ambiguity and invite more controversy. I thought the current rules were at least consistent and could be interpreted clearly.
That replay cannot be viewed in slow motion. Watch it at live speed. If you can't make a definitive determination from what was ruled on the field then the call stands.
Nah that doesn't makes sense to me. If you're going to have replay the whole point is to get the call right. Once the game is stopped for a replay, they need to use all they have to get the call right.
"Going to the ground, it looks like that’s going to be eliminated."
Then:
"Under the new rule will mean that once the receiver has control of the football, any slight movement in the receiver's hands viewed during a replay review would not be an incompletion. If the receiver is in the process of going to the ground, they will have to maintain control of the football while on the turf for the catch to be ruled as complete."
What am I missing? I don't see how this doesn't add more ambiguity and invite more controversy. I thought the current rules were at least consistent and could be interpreted clearly.
I could be wrong but I think that may mean that you essentially just can't drop the ball completely? If it hits the turf and moves but is still in the receiver's hands, it's a catch. Just spitballing based on that paragraph though
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
If they can create something like cyclops for a tennis match Â
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
Exactly. Now, no one knows what a freaking catch is. It's ridiculous.
Also, like the old days, when player crosses the plane of the endzone it's a TD! The league wants more scoring yet they make it more difficult with the stupid football move after a catch crap.
They also are looking into giving NY on play review Â
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
why am I not surprised?
RE: RE: RE: RE: I like the rule from the old days Â
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
why am I not surprised?
I don't think I've gotten one wrong over the last five years. Seems pretty easy to me. Not sure if you guys struggle with it...
I’ve been watching the NFL since long before replay and it seems like every season the officiating gets worse and worse. Replay isn’t making the games officiating more accurate and it seriously diminishes the experience for both serious and casual football fans. Several times last season I saw plays which were reviewed by replay and still obviously ruled incorrectly. What’s the point of replay if it isn’t going to make the rulings more accurate? Also, replay has completely altered the fans experience in that you don’t know if a TD or a big play is a TD or a big play until after the officials rule on the play. And, as previously stated, there’s no way to know how replay officials are going to rule on a play. Replay ruins the spontaneity of the game.
I agree with the above, let the refs rule on the field and get rid of replay. At the very least, scale way back on replay. Let coaches have one replay each game. That would address the sort of thing where a TD swings an outcome at the very end but it wouldn’t slow down the entire game.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I like the rule from the old days Â
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
why am I not surprised?
I don't think I've gotten one wrong over the last five years. Seems pretty easy to me. Not sure if you guys struggle with it...
I agree with you, Frankie. I think the current rules are very clear and easy to understand for people who actually try to understand them. I think most people confuse themselves because they don't understand what makes a receiver and what makes a runner. You can't conflate the actions of a runner and the actions of a receiver, and the people that don't understand the rule implications of each I think are the ones always saying that "I have no idea what a catch is anymore." All of these calls have been easy under the current rule...the Dez call, the Jesse James call. It's a clear rule. Going to the ground, you have to maintain control if you are a receiver.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I like the rule from the old days Â
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
why am I not surprised?
I don't think I've gotten one wrong over the last five years. Seems pretty easy to me. Not sure if you guys struggle with it...
I agree with you, Frankie. I think the current rules are very clear and easy to understand for people who actually try to understand them. I think most people confuse themselves because they don't understand what makes a receiver and what makes a runner. You can't conflate the actions of a runner and the actions of a receiver, and the people that don't understand the rule implications of each I think are the ones always saying that "I have no idea what a catch is anymore." All of these calls have been easy under the current rule...the Dez call, the Jesse James call. It's a clear rule. Going to the ground, you have to maintain control if you are a receiver.
Exactly! Everyone always goes back to the Sterling Shepard non-catch against Philly. It was CLEAR that was no catch because he was NOT A RUNNER!!! Thank you!
I agree with you, Frankie. I think the current rules are very clear and easy to understand for people who actually try to understand them. I think most people confuse themselves because they don't understand what makes a receiver and what makes a runner. You can't conflate the actions of a runner and the actions of a receiver, and the people that don't understand the rule implications of each I think are the ones always saying that "I have no idea what a catch is anymore." All of these calls have been easy under the current rule...the Dez call, the Jesse James call. It's a clear rule. Going to the ground, you have to maintain control if you are a receiver.
I also agree the current rule is pretty clear. Now it will be interjecting the ref's judgment, which will be worse. The one BIG problem I have is how they made the wrong calls in the SB, for fear of backlash.
but let's allow the calls on the field to stand without replay. Really!?
Replay in the NFL should be similar to the Rugby TMO. A referee states the call on the field and the TMO verifies the specific action. For example, "the ruling on the field is a catch and touchdown. I would like TMO to verify that both feet were in-bounds." That's it...
what they need to clarify is what is a football move. A twist and a lounge should count as a football move eliminating controlling the ball to the ground
(the rules have gotten ridiculous) but the high def cameras make incorrect calls more apparent. In the old days, the replays were so bad that maybe the ref was right and maybe they weren't. Today the refs are competing with an enhanced, magnified image in stop motion. That is pretty unfair to any human being who is operating in real time.
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
can create rules to misinterpret what is captured clearly on film by multiple cameras and agreed upon by 99% of football fans.
To me, the (unofficial) determining factor every replay official should be asking is: Will EVERY non-NFL employee -- in the stands and at home watching the replay think this is a catch? i.e. Control, and two feet down in bounds. If so, rule it a fucking catch and stop creating minutia rules to keep it from being a catch.
Whatever they decide to change, they'll still find ways to screw it up.
If games aren’t more clearly or more accurately officiated then what’s the point of replay? And yes, I think replay along with all the stupid stipulations on the rules makes things worse not better for the fans. The fan experience is diminished and the accuracy of the officiating is not improved. So, what’s the point of replay? The players make mistakes, the coaches make mistakes, replay officials make mistakes too, it’s a mystery why, but they do. Leave the game on the field as much as possible. Watching the NFL these days it’s like being in court with a bunch of lawyers debating points of law. Fuck that man, it’s football not freaking the Supreme Court.
...they kept a strict 30 second time limit. The main aim of replay should be overturning very clearly wrong calls. If you can't tell whether the call should be overturned within 30 seconds, then it's too close and the call on the field stands.
The issue with determining whether something is a catch hasn't been that we have replay. It's that on some more controversial plays, the replays highlight the ambiguities/quirks in the rule.
can create rules to misinterpret what is captured clearly on film by multiple cameras and agreed upon by 99% of football fans.
To me, the (unofficial) determining factor every replay official should be asking is: Will EVERY non-NFL employee -- in the stands and at home watching the replay think this is a catch? i.e. Control, and two feet down in bounds. If so, rule it a fucking catch and stop creating minutia rules to keep it from being a catch.
Whatever they decide to change, they'll still find ways to screw it up.
They should be asking, is the call on the field clearly wrong. If so, overturn otherwise call stands and move on.
If games aren’t more clearly or more accurately officiated then what’s the point of replay? And yes, I think replay along with all the stupid stipulations on the rules makes things worse not better for the fans. The fan experience is diminished and the accuracy of the officiating is not improved. So, what’s the point of replay? The players make mistakes, the coaches make mistakes, replay officials make mistakes too, it’s a mystery why, but they do. Leave the game on the field as much as possible. Watching the NFL these days it’s like being in court with a bunch of lawyers debating points of law. Fuck that man, it’s football not freaking the Supreme Court.
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
...they kept a strict 30 second time limit. The main aim of replay should be overturning very clearly wrong calls. If you can't tell whether the call should be overturned within 30 seconds, then it's too close and the call on the field stands.
This is pretty much what I was going to say. I could be wrong but I remember a 90 second time frame being one of the major selling points of review. Stick to 90 seconds (for clock and spot purposes) If you can't tell in that time frame then call stands
what they need to clarify is what is a football move. A twist and a lounge should count as a football move eliminating controlling the ball to the ground
They took the "football move" wording out of the rule a year or two back. It was too subjective and replaced with a WR "establishing himself as a runner" which makes it much more clear for what a WR has to do after making a catch.
I.e. If he's stumbling and going to the ground he'd have to maintain control through contact with the ground for it to be a catch. If he establishes himself as a runner and then goes to the ground, it's a catch.
"Going to the ground, it looks like that’s going to be eliminated."
Then:
"Under the new rule will mean that once the receiver has control of the football, any slight movement in the receiver's hands viewed during a replay review would not be an incompletion. If the receiver is in the process of going to the ground, they will have to maintain control of the football while on the turf for the catch to be ruled as complete."
What am I missing? I don't see how this doesn't add more ambiguity and invite more controversy. I thought the current rules were at least consistent and could be interpreted clearly.
Nah that doesn't makes sense to me. If you're going to have replay the whole point is to get the call right. Once the game is stopped for a replay, they need to use all they have to get the call right.
"Going to the ground, it looks like that’s going to be eliminated."
Then:
"Under the new rule will mean that once the receiver has control of the football, any slight movement in the receiver's hands viewed during a replay review would not be an incompletion. If the receiver is in the process of going to the ground, they will have to maintain control of the football while on the turf for the catch to be ruled as complete."
What am I missing? I don't see how this doesn't add more ambiguity and invite more controversy. I thought the current rules were at least consistent and could be interpreted clearly.
I could be wrong but I think that may mean that you essentially just can't drop the ball completely? If it hits the turf and moves but is still in the receiver's hands, it's a catch. Just spitballing based on that paragraph though
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Exactly. Now, no one knows what a freaking catch is. It's ridiculous.
Also, like the old days, when player crosses the plane of the endzone it's a TD! The league wants more scoring yet they make it more difficult with the stupid football move after a catch crap.
Think Grownkowsi spearing that DB well after the play, or OBJ and Shermans antics 2 years ago
Quote:
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
Quote:
In comment 13875849 Beer Man said:
Quote:
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
why am I not surprised?
Quote:
In comment 13875861 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 13875849 Beer Man said:
Quote:
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
why am I not surprised?
I don't think I've gotten one wrong over the last five years. Seems pretty easy to me. Not sure if you guys struggle with it...
I agree with the above, let the refs rule on the field and get rid of replay. At the very least, scale way back on replay. Let coaches have one replay each game. That would address the sort of thing where a TD swings an outcome at the very end but it wouldn’t slow down the entire game.
Quote:
In comment 13875869 Frankie in Flushing said:
Quote:
In comment 13875861 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 13875849 Beer Man said:
Quote:
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
why am I not surprised?
I don't think I've gotten one wrong over the last five years. Seems pretty easy to me. Not sure if you guys struggle with it...
I agree with you, Frankie. I think the current rules are very clear and easy to understand for people who actually try to understand them. I think most people confuse themselves because they don't understand what makes a receiver and what makes a runner. You can't conflate the actions of a runner and the actions of a receiver, and the people that don't understand the rule implications of each I think are the ones always saying that "I have no idea what a catch is anymore." All of these calls have been easy under the current rule...the Dez call, the Jesse James call. It's a clear rule. Going to the ground, you have to maintain control if you are a receiver.
Quote:
In comment 13875897 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 13875869 Frankie in Flushing said:
Quote:
In comment 13875861 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
In comment 13875849 Beer Man said:
Quote:
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
why am I not surprised?
I don't think I've gotten one wrong over the last five years. Seems pretty easy to me. Not sure if you guys struggle with it...
I agree with you, Frankie. I think the current rules are very clear and easy to understand for people who actually try to understand them. I think most people confuse themselves because they don't understand what makes a receiver and what makes a runner. You can't conflate the actions of a runner and the actions of a receiver, and the people that don't understand the rule implications of each I think are the ones always saying that "I have no idea what a catch is anymore." All of these calls have been easy under the current rule...the Dez call, the Jesse James call. It's a clear rule. Going to the ground, you have to maintain control if you are a receiver.
Exactly! Everyone always goes back to the Sterling Shepard non-catch against Philly. It was CLEAR that was no catch because he was NOT A RUNNER!!! Thank you!
I also agree the current rule is pretty clear. Now it will be interjecting the ref's judgment, which will be worse. The one BIG problem I have is how they made the wrong calls in the SB, for fear of backlash.
Replay in the NFL should be similar to the Rugby TMO. A referee states the call on the field and the TMO verifies the specific action. For example, "the ruling on the field is a catch and touchdown. I would like TMO to verify that both feet were in-bounds." That's it...
The rules, however, can be pretty idiotic.
Quote:
In comment 13875849 Beer Man said:
Quote:
If a receiver has control and both feet on the ground (in-bounds), then its a catch; plus a few other rules (like a knee down = 2 feet, etc.). Not sure why they ever changed it.
yep. if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I actually like the rules the way they are. I wouldn't change a single thing.
You're really ramping it up today.
To me, the (unofficial) determining factor every replay official should be asking is: Will EVERY non-NFL employee -- in the stands and at home watching the replay think this is a catch? i.e. Control, and two feet down in bounds. If so, rule it a fucking catch and stop creating minutia rules to keep it from being a catch.
Whatever they decide to change, they'll still find ways to screw it up.
The issue with determining whether something is a catch hasn't been that we have replay. It's that on some more controversial plays, the replays highlight the ambiguities/quirks in the rule.
To me, the (unofficial) determining factor every replay official should be asking is: Will EVERY non-NFL employee -- in the stands and at home watching the replay think this is a catch? i.e. Control, and two feet down in bounds. If so, rule it a fucking catch and stop creating minutia rules to keep it from being a catch.
Whatever they decide to change, they'll still find ways to screw it up.
They should be asking, is the call on the field clearly wrong. If so, overturn otherwise call stands and move on.
Amen brother!
Clar-it-y is what you need.
(My own weird ramblings notwithstanding)
This is pretty much what I was going to say. I could be wrong but I remember a 90 second time frame being one of the major selling points of review. Stick to 90 seconds (for clock and spot purposes) If you can't tell in that time frame then call stands
They took the "football move" wording out of the rule a year or two back. It was too subjective and replaced with a WR "establishing himself as a runner" which makes it much more clear for what a WR has to do after making a catch.
I.e. If he's stumbling and going to the ground he'd have to maintain control through contact with the ground for it to be a catch. If he establishes himself as a runner and then goes to the ground, it's a catch.