Ameraves
New title pending...
- 12,926
- 13,867
No, shit like that is what has made the "catch rule" overly complicated and stupid. Stop trying to make it harder than it needs to be.
2018 NFL Offseason Thread -- Philadelphia Burning Edition
- Thread starter Fadaar
- Start date
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,126
- 6,926
Fair enough. Just think if they make it too generous the other way you're going to have shit that clearly shouldn't be catches ruled complete.
Brahma
Obi-Bro Kenobi-X
- 11,997
- 42,546
Ameraves
New title pending...
- 12,926
- 13,867
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,126
- 6,926
No sense? It's similar what happens with runners carrying the football. It's a risk to stretch the ball out. In their case, more for fear of getting stripped as it's going to be easier to force a fumble with the ball away from the body (similar to how many times it would be harder to maintain control of a catch the further away from the body a catch is).
My main concern is we're going to have it all shift the reverse way and have many plays where it's a decision between whether a guy is merely stumbling/reaching out for extra yards but he "completed the catch" and it can't be a fumble at that point either b/c ground can't cause a fumble...versus plays where a DB (or any defender) is making contact and forcing a guy to the ground where the ball is then coming out where it's pretty clear the player didn't maintain control. Just don't want them letting receivers getting the benefit of the doubt on EVERYTHING. Hard enough for DB's to defend receivers nowadays, if we start slanting everything to the offense's favor, games are going to get ridiculous.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,420
- 50,507
He didn't have control of the ball before the ball touched the ground, which is a crystal clear case for an incomplete pass. There isn't even anything convoluted about why it wasn't a catch.
*edit*
I will say that this illustrates the absolute worst aspect of the challenge system. There was absolutely no reason to challenge that play because it totally looked legit, but the Packers were fucked so might as well hail mary up a challenge, and BAM, turns out that in slow mo from the right angle, the ball touched the ground before he had control. How many game-changing plays in the old days would have turned out to have technically been incompletions/fumbles/whatever if you put the play frame by frame under a microscope?
*edit*
I will say that this illustrates the absolute worst aspect of the challenge system. There was absolutely no reason to challenge that play because it totally looked legit, but the Packers were fucked so might as well hail mary up a challenge, and BAM, turns out that in slow mo from the right angle, the ball touched the ground before he had control. How many game-changing plays in the old days would have turned out to have technically been incompletions/fumbles/whatever if you put the play frame by frame under a microscope?
Last edited:
- 1
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,126
- 6,926
A ton, actually. Which is why you've seen a lot of pushback on the idea of replay. A lot of great plays getting called back for stuff that seems so trivial compared to the actual play itself (like whether or not the Eagles trick play touchdown was actually illegal formation, that kind of shit).
Brahma
Obi-Bro Kenobi-X
- 11,997
- 42,546
If he is stretching out for more yards the catch has been made. If in any way there is a secondary effort it's probably a 99% chance its a catch. That can be tip toeing to stay in bounds, stretching out, head down for that hit...whatever. That makes it pretty easy to define.
Merrith
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 18,126
- 6,926
In a case where you're still trying to get feet down, going to the ground as a result of contact by the defender, I wouldn't say it's 99% chance it's a catch. Some of these receivers in 3rd/4th down situations are stretching for extra yardage before they have completed the process of a catch, and the same can be said for goal line situations. The main issue with the rule changes in recent years has been trying to define "going to the ground", and whether it's because of contact from a defender or the receiver going down on their own (laying out for a ball, stretching for possible extra yards, tripping up their own feet, etc.
jooka
marco esquandolas
- 14,417
- 6,133
- 1
Kaines
Potato Supreme
- 16,906
- 46,105
You've said some really stupid shit in this thread, but this is the king. At what point did the football EVER go out of bounds during that play?
- 1
if that was a catch, and he had control when he passed the goal line, then no, TD.. play is over once you pass the line
jooka
marco esquandolas
- 14,417
- 6,133
Ameraves
New title pending...
- 12,926
- 13,867
Bubbles
2022 Asshat Award Winner
- 44,632
- -32,868
Ameraves
New title pending...
- 12,926
- 13,867
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? The ball comes loose when it hits the ground just before the end zone, he rolls over and re-secures it while in the end zone.
- 1
- 1
