Patriots benefit from a rule

[Bormio]

So a rule change will be forthcoming.

[ATLien12x]

PEACH COUNTY ALL OVER

[FootballGuy]

What the hell is a catch nowadays? Lol

[NYHSFAN33]

In all fairness a rule change better be coming regardless of why.  The rules for a catch / TD are convoluted and lack all common sense 

[Bormio]

I told you in the NFL the Peach Co play was incomplete.  If going to the ground, must control through the ground.  The Peach Co call was wrong cause it is not the NFL.

[Bormio]

Crossing the goal line does not end the play if going to the ground.  You must control THROUGH the ground.  You can hate the rule or not, but the call was correct.  The rule as is takes away those fake TDs where you catch a pass hovering above the goal line and lose control when you fall.

[aZjimbo]

Gotta complete the catch. Brady does his magic once again. 

[Ararar]

We all know a catch when we see one rule or no rule 

[Bormio]

The rule used to be you could be in the air in the EZ, catch a pass and that was a TD - before you ever contacted the ground.  There were some TDs where the ball was held for a fraction of a second.  The catch rule is now the same on the field and in the EZ.  And they are calling it consistently.

[TheMaximumHornetSting]

19 minutes ago, FootballGuy said:

What the hell is a catch nowadays? Lol

I dont know... 

Catches are becomung as mythical as defenses... 

[Wosinc]

13 minutes ago, Ararar said:

We all know a catch when we see one rule or no rule 

Well, we used to know.

Now?  I don’t have the faintest idea how it’s going to be ruled.

[Bormio]

The ESPN people do not understand the rule.  Crossing the goal line means NOTHING about determining incomplete or not.  If a country doctor in SC understands it, how can people who do this for a living not?  BTW Romo knew the rule - he is excellent.  (of course he threw the pass to Dez).

[hardhit1]

Regardless of who you had  that was a  heck of a finish. Still would have been if the Steelers won.

[TheMaximumHornetSting]

I'll refrain from the Patriot hate. As I hate the Steelers more. But Im not gonna hate on them right now... 

I feel like they're beating themselves up enough... 

[Bormio]

15 minutes ago, hardhit1 said:

Regardless of who you had  that was a  heck of a finish. Still would have been if the Steelers won.

Better this way though .... lots

[HawgGoneIt]

I think some level of common sense needs be applied though. In the Peach County play, the receiver had possession of the ball for a couple of steps before beginning a fall to the ground which shook the ball loose.

The way you explain it, the receiver can possess the ball from one end zone to the other and if he falls to the ground there and it pops out, it isn't a catch. 

There has to be some further explanation from the NFL on what exactly constitutes possession of a catch. 2 steps? 10 steps?  25 yards? 

What if the receiver is stumbling for 99 yards before falling and the ball pops out? Even though he clearly possessed it for the 99 stumbling yards. 

 

Common sense. 

In the Peach County game the receiver clearly possessed the ball for more than the action of falling to the ground as there was at least two steps before diving and outstretching the ball. 

[HawgGoneIt]

This should be a catch at any level of play imo. 

It's not like he was falling down having never possessed the ball. He ran some distance with clear possession. 

 

It's nothing like the Steelers play tonight where the reciever was going down as he made the catch. Very different plays imo. I can almost agree with the ruling in the Steelers/Pats game tonight, although, I think in super slo-mo replay, you can say the ball moved under review A LOT of the time. 

[Bormio]

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I think some level of common sense needs be applied though. In the Peach County play, the receiver had possession of the ball for a couple of steps before beginning a fall to the ground which shook the ball loose.

The way you explain it, the receiver can possess the ball from one end zone to the other and if he falls to the ground there and it pops out, it isn't a catch. 

There has to be some further explanation from the NFL on what exactly constitutes possession of a catch. 2 steps? 10 steps?  25 yards? 

What if the receiver is stumbling for 99 yards before falling and the ball pops out? Even though he clearly possessed it for the 99 stumbling yards. 

 

Common sense. 

In the Peach County game the receiver clearly possessed the ball for more than the action of falling to the ground as there was at least two steps before diving and outstretching the ball. 

I agree with you in part.  There was an INT overturned in the NFL that involved stumbling for about 4 steps before finally hitting the ground, but he was in the process of falling the whole way.  I looked at the Peach Co tape - there was about 1 and a half steps before being tripped and falling.  So it might not have been incomplete in the NFL.  Not totally sure the Peach Co receiver was not bobbling a little before being tripped up.  The call in the Steelers game was more clearcut - he fell as he was reaching out from the start of the catch.  The rule is if you are going to ground as you secure the ball - you must complete the catch through the ground.  The number of steps is not noted.

[HawgGoneIt]

3 minutes ago, Bormio said:

I agree with you in part.  There was an INT overturned in the NFL that involved stumbling for about 4 steps before finally hitting the ground, but he was in the process of falling the whole way.  I looked at the Peach Co tape - there was about 1 and a half steps before being tripped and falling.  So it might not have been incomplete in the NFL.  Not totally sure the Peach Co receiver was not bobbling a little before being tripped up.  The call in the Steelers game was more clearcut - he fell as he was reaching out from the start of the catch.  The rule is if you are going to ground as you secure the ball - you must complete the catch through the ground.  The number of steps is not noted.

I do kind of like the rule in that aspect. The goal line shouldn't end the play in a diving catch lets say. But, I also kind of liked the old football related move rule as well. There should be some level of common sense applied. 

I think under either rule, the Steelers play probably wasn't a catch. He was going down onto a knee as he was securing the ball and then reached out to the goal line and bobbling the catch. The ground clearly helped him complete the catch, which is about the same as bouncing one in and cradling it. 

Anyway, there are different kinds of catches and it doesn't seem like the rule is clear enough at times. If the receiver tucks the ball in and crosses the goal line and lands onto his back, then the ball pops out after he is clearly in the end zone on his back with possession, it would seem stupid to apply the same rule. 

 

[ThunderRam]

I'm not a fan of either team. But if Antonio Brown was going to get injured and unable to return in any game, of course the Patriots would be the beneficiary.

[181pl]

This is why the NFL is unwatchable. Completely a catch. Controlled the ball, his knees are down (although untouched), AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, he crossed the goal loan. Then he hit the ground and was touched.  Because he crossed the goal line from outside of the end zone PRIOR to the his hands hitting the ground, it's a touchdown.

 

Horrible league. 

[181pl]

11 hours ago, Bormio said:

The rule used to be you could be in the air in the EZ, catch a pass and that was a TD - before you ever contacted the ground.  There were some TDs where the ball was held for a fraction of a second.  The catch rule is now the same on the field and in the EZ.  And they are calling it consistently.

And it's a joke. Made up garbage.

[HawgGoneIt]

12 minutes ago, 181pl said:

This is why the NFL is unwatchable. Completely a catch. Controlled the ball, his knees are down (although untouched), AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, he crossed the goal loan. Then he hit the ground and was touched.  Because he crossed the goal line from outside of the end zone PRIOR to the his hands hitting the ground, it's a touchdown.

 

Horrible league. 

I'm glad you pointed out the "wasn't touched" part. This is a part of the problem. We are allowing a player to be down, get back up and run if he wasn't touched. I think this is partially to blame for the catch rule being as it is. I really dislike the "touched down" rule. They should honestly go back to the old rule there and it would help alleviate some of the more silly catch rulings. 

[Bormio]

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I'm glad you pointed out the "wasn't touched" part. This is a part of the problem. We are allowing a player to be down, get back up and run if he wasn't touched. I think this is partially to blame for the catch rule being as it is. I really dislike the "touched down" rule. They should honestly go back to the old rule there and it would help alleviate some of the more silly catch rulings. 

Then you would have 2 different rules for what a catch was on the field and in the EZ.  On the field, people like the “survive the ground” rule - people were upset about people bobbling the ball on contact with the ground and being awarded a catch.  So the rule should be easier cause it is the EZ?  That does not make sense.  You do not have a controlled catch until you survive the ground.  That is the point.

[HawgGoneIt]

Just now, Bormio said:

Then you would have 2 different rules for what a catch was on the field and in the EZ.  On the field, people like the “survive the ground” rule - people were upset about people bobbling the ball on contact with the ground and being awarded a catch.  So the rule should be easier cause it is the EZ?  That does not make sense.  You do not have a controlled catch until you survive the ground.  That is the point.

But, as we see, a couple of steps in between should create possession without surviving the ground ever having been part of the call.