Possible NFL Rule changes
- Thread starter DJnVa
- Start date
Definitely more ambiguity. Seems pretty similar to the old rule which they changed to get more consistency.
Go back and look at some of these from 2016 Katie Nolan talking to Blandino and now apply the new rule.
Maybe I am missing something but it seems that if this is now the full language of the rule it is going to create a spike in fumbles as every receiver who gets clocked on his first additional step will clearly be making a "football" move that last year would have been irrelevant because the refs interpreted the loss of the ball that quickly as a-priori proof that the receiver did not yet really have possession. Now, they will have possession as defined by the move, thus a fumble, not an incomplete.
No?
I want to say that there was a play against the Broncos in 2015 where a key call was overturned despite a lack of indisputable evidence that the play was originally called incorrectly. I want to say it was a reception by Amendola. I don't remember if it was in the regular season or in the playoffs. Anyone remember the play in question?
but was he able to make one and chose not to? Because that's part of the rule now.... lol
Yeah what is that about? These morons had all offseason to come up with something and this is the best they could do?
No because the player established 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball. If he falls to the ground with the ball, he's fine.
No more "surviving the ground". They want to get rid of it and bring back "football move". Fun.
Are you sure? How does that fulfill the Part 3 "football move" of the catch requirement you posted?
Toe tapping the side of the field has always been a catch. I don't think that will change.
Is toe tapping in the middle of the field a football move?
Ed-Oh I guess not. Just saw Red's post...
"Or the ability to perform such an act" is going to be a shitshow. They'll just have to call everything a catch.
Catches and non-catches aside, can I make a request for a low-hanging-fruit rule change I'd like to see? If you score a touchdown as time expires in regulation, and you're either leading by any margin or trailing by 3 points or more (and therefore the game status cannot change as a result of a two-point conversion attempt), the game ends immediately - no kick or two-point conversion is attempted. I'd like to think the farce at the end of the Saints-Vikings playoff game should have clinched this change, but I've never understood why things should remain the way they are in this regard. The only explanation I've ever heard for why the current rule is in place has something to do with gambling and point spreads...but surely having a consistent rule like this actually removes any thought of manipulating the margin of victory anyway? If you want to kick an extra point after a late-game touchdown, score before the clock hits 0:00.
Why shouldn't this be an automatic change for next season?
Why shouldn't this be an automatic change for next season?
I didn't raise the issue to suggest it wouldn't be a catch. I raised it to point out that the new rule, which was made to improve clarity, if taken literally, wouldn't correctly cover one of the NFL's signature plays.
I thought it both amusing and instructive of the NFL. I mean, granted, there's an "elastic clause" in that last "ability to perform" such an act part, which clearly in no way has any judgment component.
With regards to toe tapping on the sideline, if you toe tap and keep control of the ball all the way to the ground then I think it remains a catch. But if the receiver to taps and then the ball moves coming into contact with the ground on the way down, I think that makes it clearly not a catch since there isn't an ability to perform a football move.
but did he have the ability to make a football move? Because that is part of the rule.
I'm really glad that "football move" is back. It's always been my favorite piece of nonsense formal positivism trying to disguise itself as certainty.
Maybe someday someone will manage to quantify "football move" and we'll really start getting somewhere--make this sport scientific!!
Maybe someday someone will manage to quantify "football move" and we'll really start getting somewhere--make this sport scientific!!
Just spitballing, but what if a ST player has a snaps % clause in his contract?
Also, what farce? If I recall correctly, the Vikings scored as clock expired and Keenum took a knee. Was there a nasty reaction by NO? I’m not sure I see the issue.
It seems they wanted to achieve two goals: (1) Give refs "it looks like a catch" authority, and (2) Confirm the NE Patriots got away with one against the Steelers.
Points scored is still a factor in some of the rarely used tiebreakers, so during the regular season you still want to give teams the chance to help themselves that way. Imagine if a team in week 17 scored a TD as time expired but missed out on a playoff spot because they weren’t allowed to kick the extra point.
In the end it didn’t matter because the Cowboys won and got in but here’s an entertaining clip of the Packers and Panthers trying to score as many points as possible in their respective games in 1999 because points would have mattered for their tiebreaker.
(Edit: yes the playoff tiebreakers since have made it such that points scored basically don’t matter but as long as scoring still is on the books as a tiebreaker you should allow teams to do it.)
Last edited:
I love your posts, man, but this...really? Even in the ultra-rare situation where the points scored tiebreaker matters, one or two points at the end of one game is so unlikely to matter as to be laughable - and if it does, if you know the rule and that you'd have to score before time expires, make sure you score before time expires.
The farce was that everyone was celebrating a miracle victory and one of the greatest playoff endings ever, and the Saints had left or were leaving the field for their locker room...and it took the referees a good 8 or 10 minutes to call everyone back and clear the field so that Keenum could take a knee. And this is a fairly commonplace scenario after incredibly dramatic end-of-game touchdowns: everyone goes crazy, and nobody is at all bothered about the extra point, and yet the referees are made to look like killjoys and the TV commentators are left marking time and the flow of the celebration is halted artificially for no good reason at all. It's hardly a big deal in the grand scheme of things, of course...but college games in this situation end immediately, with no PAT attempt, and aesthetically the result is much more pleasing. (For example, can you imagine Auburn having had to clear the field to kick a PAT or take a knee after the game-ending "Kick Six" in the Iron Bowl a few years ago?)
This is where I am on this. There was a lot of furor over the Tuck Rule as well, but you know what the Tuck Rule was? UNAMBIGUOUS. It provided a clear guideline for what previously had been a judgement call. Same thing with this rule. “That kinda feels like a catch” is not a better rule than “this is a catch; this is not a catch”.
I’m not normally sympathetic toward the NFL on anything. But they are in a tough spot on the catch rule. On one hand, we are being subjected to example after example of Calvin Johnson Plays – plays that look like catches to the human eye that are overturned because of the surviving the ground rule. On the other, you have a generation of viewers that now have the ability to freeze frame any play and tweet any inaccuracy across the world in an instant.
This isn’t really a problem unique to the NFL. To take one example, MLB is wrestling with the same thing when the defender keeps his glove on the runner for 0.01 of a second as the runner stands up after a slide and is called out.
So what choice do you have? Adjudicate everything as if it were reviewed in high def quality even if it isn’t in the spirit of the game? Cling to the eyeball test even though everyone will know in an instant whether or not the rule was interpreted accurately?
I’m not a fan of leaving things up to the refs’ judgment either for reasons others have described but it’s one way of getting around an otherwise unsolvable problem.
This isn’t really a problem unique to the NFL. To take one example, MLB is wrestling with the same thing when the defender keeps his glove on the runner for 0.01 of a second as the runner stands up after a slide and is called out.
So what choice do you have? Adjudicate everything as if it were reviewed in high def quality even if it isn’t in the spirit of the game? Cling to the eyeball test even though everyone will know in an instant whether or not the rule was interpreted accurately?
I’m not a fan of leaving things up to the refs’ judgment either for reasons others have described but it’s one way of getting around an otherwise unsolvable problem.
What if they had simply made a catch like any other play where "the ground cannot cause a fumble"? Then there would be consistency between a run and catch. Keep the two feet/one non-hand body part down after the catch part.
If a guy catches it with two feet down, and bobbles it when his upper body hits the ground -- no catch.
If a guy catches it with two feet down, and bobbles it when the ball hits the ground -- good catch.
I'll stop you right there. The ground CAN cause a fumble. Always could.
Consistency is about when a player gains possession which has nothing to do with a runner who already has possession.
Exactly, while I think this new proposed rule is a step in the right direction, the controversy now shifts to fumbles. So while the stakes of the "catch, no catch" replay was high, its going to be off the charts when the issues is "fumble or no catch" Since a turnover is more costly than an incomplete pass, we're going to see the same teams that argued "that was a catch" now argue "that's not control" with the exact same situation.
So imagine the Jesse James play happens on the 2 yard line and Harmon recovers. All the Steeler fans that have been screaming "catch" all off-season would be screaming "he didn't have control" to keep possession.
So controversy isn't going away. It's likely to be less total controversial plays as fumbles after a catch are less likely. But the stakes are higher, so the arguments will be tense.
Not sure Vegas has anything to do with it when the Vikings needed 1 more point to cover the spread, they brought everyone back out and just kneeled it out anyway.
Only problem is he broke the plane of the goal line, so it's a TD before he juggled/fumbled it.
Man... this would have been awesome if it had happened.
Unfortunately the NFL might actually being smart and correcting this before it actually happened in game.
I wouldn't have a problem with the change of possession via the interception immediately ending the game in mid-play. That used to be what happened on blocked conversion attempts.
In overtime Team B had its chance and blew it. Under the revised rule there's great potential (especially in an elimination game) for Team B's players to maim the Team A player with the ball as they have nothing to lose except a possible penalty/fine.
Then the team A player should know the rules and go down as soon as he gets the pick like smart players do any time they get a game ending interception
Haha... I knew this was going to be fun...
Under the new rules, this is a catch. But, wait. There's more. Under new emphasis, this could be ruled down at the 1, because James is deemed to have surrendered his advance. Really need more clarification from Officiating Dept as to how/when this applies
Under the new rules, this is a catch. But, wait. There's more. Under new emphasis, this could be ruled down at the 1, because James is deemed to have surrendered his advance. Really need more clarification from Officiating Dept as to how/when this applies
By extending the ball to the goal line, isn't it really the opposite? He doesn't seem to have surrendered his advance to me.
Is this only applicable for defenders trying to tackle, or ballcarriers who lower their heads as they drive forward trying to gain yards? Because it's unfair to aim this only at defenders if ballcarriers get to do it with no penalty.
It's applicable to all players everywhere on the field, the little guy is about to become significantly less effective and we will start reverting to bigger lumbering players at some positions I'd wager