Catch rule and Instant replay are killing the NFL

[cardncubfan]

You have to bring the ball into your body for it to be a catch? Haven't seen the replay.

I posted a vid of it on the previous page.

 

[cardncubfan]

Yes. Once he brought the ball into his body he only had one foot down.

That is what I seen as well. I didn't understand the controversy as I knew it was deemed not a catch. But after Mitch explained it was originally ruled a TD I could see why some would complain about the reversal.

 

[GatorAZ]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

I was searching for that replay. For a split second it doesn't look like he's touching it with either hand and if he is there's clearly no control. That part is clear. The feet is where you can't tell. They need censors in the turf pellets.

 

[daves]

One of the problems I see is there is an inconsistency that the ground cannot cause a fumble for a running back yet a receiver can have control of a pass but if he hits the ground and loses control, it's an incomplete pass.

I think the same rules should apply for both. It drives me crazy when a receiver catches the ball, has control, the ground knocks it loose and it is called an incomplete pass.

I know this drives some people crazy, but it makes sense. You don't have possession of the ball just because you got both hands on it. If you're diving when you make the catch, you have to maintain possession after you hit the ground. And if not, you have to get two feet down and make a football move with the ball secured.

The alternative is that in plays where a receiver dives for the ball, gets both hands on it, then hits the ground and the ball pops out, it would be ruled possession and a fumble. We've seen what that looks like and it's absurd.

The NFL has failed in not explaining the rule properly, allowing ignorant TV commentators to prattle on about not understanding what a catch is. They should've put out an explainer video with positive and negative examples, as well as examples from the "bad old days" of what used to be called a catch and fumble, so that everyone realizes that the current rule is actually the most common-sense way of defining a catch.

...dave

 

[daves]

BTW, in the case of the overturned Buffalo TD, it looks to me as though he gains control of the ball while both feet are still touching. Certainly too close to overturn. Bogus call!

...dbs

 

[NJCardFan]

Ridiculous the end of the first half patriots bills game

Here's my issue with that play. The official on the field signaled touchdown but it went to review and it was overturned. The thing is that IMO there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it but since it's the Patriots, well, you know.

 

[NJCardFan]

Neither the catch rule nor instant replay are killing the NFL. Raise your hand if you are going to stop watching for either of those reasons.

It's not just the catch rule or the instant replay that's driving fans away. Leaving the kneeling out of it, the officials are making themselves too much a part of the game. One of these days I'm going to watch a game on Gamepass and count the number of plays to the number of penalties. A talking head on our local sports talk station was joking that there might be 6-10 plays a game where there are no flags but I'm not sure he's joking. You have the preferential treatment of certain players and teams which rubs fans the wrong way. On one play they'll call holding and on another they'll let it go then there's throwing flags on plays where the infraction had zero impact on the play. And notice how often the phantom calls happen on big plays. In short, no one goes to a game to see the officials but someone needs to tell the officials that.

 

[Mainstreet]

I know this drives some people crazy, but it makes sense. You don't have possession of the ball just because you got both hands on it. If you're diving when you make the catch, you have to maintain possession after you hit the ground. And if not, you have to get two feet down and make a football move with the ball secured.

The alternative is that in plays where a receiver dives for the ball, gets both hands on it, then hits the ground and the ball pops out, it would be ruled possession and a fumble. We've seen what that looks like and it's absurd.

The NFL has failed in not explaining the rule properly, allowing ignorant TV commentators to prattle on about not understanding what a catch is. They should've put out an explainer video with positive and negative examples, as well as examples from the "bad old days" of what used to be called a catch and fumble, so that everyone realizes that the current rule is actually the most common-sense way of defining a catch.

...dave

Yup, it does drive me crazy especially when the receiver has possession entering the end zone or in the end zone and the ground knocks the ball free.

I keep reverting to the rules concerning the running back where the ground can't cause a fumble if he has possession. And it is a touchdown when the running back has possession once he breaks the plane of the goal line before it comes loose.

I can understand the rules but my feelings tell be otherwise if that makes any sense.

 

[slanidrac16]

Let's talk about the Steeler TE catch.

He caught the ball, his knee touch the ground (legal catch) reaches the ball to break the plane and nobody has touched him. I will argue till the cows come home that is a touchdown. What if he would have caught it on the 2 yd. line, took two steps into the endzone breaks the plane, dives in to celebrate and the ball hits the ground and pops out?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Here's my issue with that play. The official on the field signaled touchdown but it went to review and it was overturned. The thing is that IMO there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it but since it's the Patriots, well, you know.

agreed. the fact that it was reversed meant the ref saw incontrovertible proof it wasn't a catch... which is freaking impossible.

 

[GatorAZ]

Here's my issue with that play. The official on the field signaled touchdown but it went to review and it was overturned. The thing is that IMO there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it but since it's the Patriots, well, you know.

I feel like they uphold a lot of reviews to protect the ref's call when most know it should go the other way. I wish they would go into the review process with an open mind. It's not like these refs are seeing the play in slow-mo with high tech goggles that can zoom in on turf pellets in real time. Not necessary talking about yesterday but in general.

 

[Dback Jon]

And the Steelers get a huge INT upheld that was clearer he was out


NFL favors teams like NE and Pitt

 

[pemory09]

And the Steelers get a huge INT upheld that was clearer he was out


NFL favors teams like NE and Pitt

I don’t think they necessarily favor those clubs, but the refs. do seem to approach games as though they expect NE & Pitt to win; therefore they, IMHO, tend to consistently give them the benefit of a doubt. Of course, that Pitt-Sea SB years ago was a disgrace (beyond the benefit of a doubt...in favor of...surprise...Pitt!), so what do I know.

 

[WisconsinCard]

The way I would tweek the replay is that a ref would announce what they are reviewing. I mean if a SJ rules a pass incomplete and the coach throws a challenge flag the ref would announce why the pass was ruled INC. I mean if it's two feet (pretty easy for us to see), if it's because the receiver didn't maintain possession (not so easy to overturn in some cases). Then the coach has the option to continue on with the challenge.

 

[NJCardFan]

I don’t think they necessarily favor those clubs, but the refs. do seem to approach games as though they expect NE & Pitt to win; therefore they, IMHO, tend to consistently give them the benefit of a doubt. Of course, that Pitt-Sea SB years ago was a disgrace (beyond the benefit of a doubt...in favor of...surprise...Pitt!), so what do I know.

Don't forget our SB. The 3 or 4 penalties that went uncalled on Harrison's int.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vermont Maverick]

Even the Boston Globe wrote a whole article about how the officials robbed the Bills of that TD.

One of the best lines in that article is that if 10 out of 10 guys at a bar can see within 3 minutes that it was a catch---why can't the NFL officials in relatively the same amount of time and accuracy.

If 10 out of 10 drunk guys think they see something, it must be true. Is that the standard for how we should be basing the rules? Seriously?

 

[Vermont Maverick]

Here's my issue with that play. The official on the field signaled touchdown but it went to review and it was overturned. The thing is that IMO there wasn't enough evidence to overturn it but since it's the Patriots, well, you know.

That official was looking at his feet. You put all the angles together to see the bobble in conjunction with the feet, and it’s no catch. It’s no catch by nano seconds, but it is no catch.

I, for one, do not believe any team gets calls. Some go your way, some don’t. But that’s me.

 

[WisconsinCard]

I, for one, do not believe any team gets calls. Some go your way, some don’t. But that’s me.

I agree 100%

 

[oaken1]

if they are going to review...perhaps just send the film to an off site team of officials with no information as to what was called on the field

 

[SoCal Cardfan]

If 10 out of 10 drunk guys think they see something, it must be true. Is that the standard for how we should be basing the rules? Seriously?

The way officiating has been for several years... My money is on the drunk guys making the correct call.

 

[NJCardFan]

That official was looking at his feet. You put all the angles together to see the bobble in conjunction with the feet, and it’s no catch. It’s no catch by nano seconds, but it is no catch.

I, for one, do not believe any team gets calls. Some go your way, some don’t. But that’s me.

Sorry but you're naive if you don't think some teams get preferential treatment. I've been watching this game for over 40 years and I've seen teams like Dallas, Pittsburgh, NE get away with stuff no other team gets away with. For example, I've seen QB's get drilled with no flag but at times if anyone breathes on Brady, the flags come flying out of the blimp. And it happens in all sports, just not football.

 

[Dback Jon]

Sorry but you're naive if you don't think some teams get preferential treatment. I've been watching this game for over 40 years and I've seen teams like Dallas, Pittsburgh, NE get away with stuff no other team gets away with. For example, I've seen QB's get drilled with no flag but at times if anyone breathes on Brady, the flags come flying out of the blimp. And it happens in all sports, just not football.

Agreed.

 

[Southpaw]

I've stopped watching games with bad Reffing crews. Know many who have done the same


The catch rule is not in line with other NFL rules. If it was, why do so many people have an issue with it?


The replay at the end of the first half of the patriots bills game just was exercise and why we play needs to be limited you there a time limit or we need more cameras it was ridiculous to overturn that touchdown after what five minutes of looking at it

The fans on the losing side of the replay decision have problems with the calls and bitch about it, the winners not so much.

 

[Southpaw]

No. Two hands secure on the ball with control (1 or 2 hands) through the ground and two feet in bounds.

What's making these plays more difficult to judge are the slo-mo replays. We are talking nano-seconds to determine a secured catch. In real time, it's such a great catch by Benjamin.

Sort of a catch, but not really. It would be a faux catch.

 

[Southpaw]

Yup, it does drive me crazy especially when the receiver has possession entering the end zone or in the end zone and the ground knocks the ball free.

I keep reverting to the rules concerning the running back where the ground can't cause a fumble if he has possession. And it is a touchdown when the running back has possession once he breaks the plane of the goal line before it comes loose.

I can understand the rules but my feelings tell be otherwise if that makes any sense.

Don't understand why the difference is not obvious. When the ball is "passed" it is no longer in any player's possession until it is legally received. When the ball is "run" it is possessed by the runner already.