Super Bowl LII Thread

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Yeah I'm not even sure the rule itself needs to change that much.
They just need to be consistent in the way they apply the rule, and don't overturn the call on the field unless you really have something clear.
I like the stand on the Clement's TD.

On the Ertz TD, announcers made fools of themselves, they got confused with the rule that a receiver CATCHING THE BALL GOING TO THE GROUND must maintain control of the ball all the way through.
But Ertz didn't caught the ball going to the ground, he caught the ball, took several steps, and THEN went to the ground.
That is the difference between this and the Jesse James play which was a good overturn with the rule as it's written now. Maybe there's something that needs to change there.

The NFL needs to go back to the rule the way it was before, stop with this shit that the ball has to survive the ground rule or that the receiver has to make a football move. It leaves too much to the interpretation of the ref and the replay.
If a player catches the ball in the field of play and gets two feet or equivalent down in the field of play, it is a reception. If he loses it when he hits the ground and no defender is touching him, it is a free live ball = fumble.
If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands before he makes a so called football move, that is also a fumble. Not an incompletion.
The Jessie James TD should have been TD by a rule that has existed in football since football was first created. Jessie caught the ball and his left foot and right knee touch the ground while he possessed the ball. It was a catch right there.
It wasn't until after he stretched the ball over the goal line that he bobbled it.
The play should have ended when he stretched and broke the plane of the end zone, regardless that he bobbled it after and repossessed it.

Same thing when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and has two feet down on the ground, the play is over right there. Ref blows the whistle The play is over! Stop with it must survive the ground.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

The NFL needs to go back to the rule the way it was before, stop with this shit that the ball has to survive the ground rule or that the receiver has to make a football move. It leaves too much to the interpretation of the ref and the replay.
If a player catches the ball in the field of play and gets two feet or equivalent down in the field of play, it is a reception. If he loses it when he hits the ground and no defender is touching him, it is a free live ball = fumble.
If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands before he makes a so called football move, that is also a fumble. Not an incompletion.
The Jessie James TD should have been TD by a rule that has existed in football since football was first created. Jessie caught the ball and his left foot and right knee touch the ground while he possessed the ball. It was a catch right there.
It wasn't until after he stretched the ball over the goal line that he bobbled it.
The play should have ended when he stretched and broke the plane of the end zone, regardless that he bobbled it after and repossessed it.

Same thing when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and has two feet down on the ground, the play is over right there. Ref blows the whistle The play is over! Stop with it must survive the ground.

Maybe we can agree on your definition of the catch. Though I think it would need to be detailed just a little bit more.

Wouldn't it create quite a bump in fumbles called ?

Anyway I think the "control of the ball" part of the rule inherently introduces a time element. You control the ball because it doesn't move for a certain amount of time. Even if it's a fraction of a second. I don't see how the time element could be entirely dismissed.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Maybe we can agree on your definition of the catch. Though I think it would need to be detailed just a little bit more.

Wouldn't it create quite a bump in fumbles called ?

Anyway I think the "control of the ball" part of the rule inherently introduces a time element. You control the ball because it doesn't move for a certain amount of time. Even if it's a fraction of a second. I don't see how the time element could be entirely dismissed.

Yes it will create more fumbles, but is wrong with that? The NFL played with the two feet down or equivalent possession rule since the league was created and nobody complained about it or said there are too many fumbles. Turnovers are a exciting game changing play, nothing wrong with it. No need to protect the offenses any more then they already do. There was over 1000 yards of offense in the superbowl and only one punt. That is not balanced.
It wasn't until they changed the rules to promote more passing and give the offense more advantage and reason to throw the ball more, it has changed the game in a bad way.
Plus it is a contradiction when you can catch a ball on the edge of the sideline, as the receiver then steps put of bounds and only have two feet down and it is a catch. But in the field of play Jessie James gets his left foot and right knee down with possession of the ball and he is ruled incomplete.
You cannot have it both ways. the ball has to survive the ground rule has to go.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Yes it will create more fumbles, but is wrong with that? The NFL played with the two feet down or equivalent possession rule since the league was created and nobody complained about it or said there are too many fumbles. Turnovers are a exciting game changing play, nothing wrong with it. No need to protect the offenses any more then they already do. There was over 1000 yards of offense in the superbowl and only one punt. That is not balanced.
It wasn't until they changed the rules to promote more passing and give the offense more advantage and reason to throw the ball more, it has changed the game in a bad way.
Plus it is a contradiction when you can catch a ball on the edge of the sideline, as the receiver then steps put of bounds and only have two feet down and it is a catch. But in the field of play Jessie James gets his left foot and right knee down with possession of the ball and he is ruled incomplete.
You cannot have it both ways. the ball has to survive the ground rule has to go.

I agree with you. I also wish we had John Madden in the booth. He would be ROASTING the NFL with humor, not making pithy statements or getting the refs in the booth. He would get his whiteboard on the screen, then draw a big foot touching the ground, then the other foot, then the ball in the receiver's hand. THEN BOOOOM thats a catch.

Frank Caliendo would do it great too.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Yes it will create more fumbles, but is wrong with that? The NFL played with the two feet down or equivalent possession rule since the league was created and nobody complained about it or said there are too many fumbles. Turnovers are a exciting game changing play, nothing wrong with it. No need to protect the offenses any more then they already do. There was over 1000 yards of offense in the superbowl and only one punt. That is not balanced.
It wasn't until they changed the rules to promote more passing and give the offense more advantage and reason to throw the ball more, it has changed the game in a bad way.
Plus it is a contradiction when you can catch a ball on the edge of the sideline, as the receiver then steps put of bounds and only have two feet down and it is a catch. But in the field of play Jessie James gets his left foot and right knee down with possession of the ball and he is ruled incomplete.
You cannot have it both ways. the ball has to survive the ground rule has to go.

On the bolded part, I do agree.

But on the underlined part I don't. If the receiver catches the ball going to the ground, he has to maintain control all the way, wether he falls in bounds or not doesn't change anything. (As the rule is written now).

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

On the bolded part, I do agree.

But on the underlined part I don't. If the receiver catches the ball going to the ground, he has to maintain control all the way, wether he falls in bounds or not doesn't change anything. (As the rule is written now).

The maintain possession to the ground part is bad/awful rule that needs to go away.
That fairly recent (new) rule is one of the major problems that is causing too much controversy. It leaves too much interpretation to the refs and causing too many replays and delays in the game.
Back before this terrible rule, regardless of where you are in the field, if player catches a pass and posses the ball in a hand and gets both feet or a foot and knee/hip down in the ground, it is a catch.
If that happens in the end zone the whistle is immediately blown, play over = TD.
Jessie James play he broke the line of the end zone first and then dropped the ball. When he reached the ball over the line the play is over. It should have been a TD. Watch the replay and you will see it. He dropped if after it crossed, but the ref applied the "he has to maintain control past the ground rule" incorrectly. Because by rule the play officially ended when he reached the ball across the line.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

The maintain possession to the ground part is bad/awful rule that needs to go away.
That fairly recent (new) rule is one of the major problems that is causing too much controversy. It leaves too much interpretation to the refs and causing too many replays and delays in the game.
Back before this terrible rule, regardless of where you are in the field, if player catches a pass and posses the ball in a hand and gets both feet or a foot and knee/hip down in the ground, it is a catch.
If that happens in the end zone the whistle is immediately blown, play over = TD.
Jessie James play he broke the line of the end zone first and then dropped the ball. When he reached the ball over the line the play is over. It should have been a TD. Watch the replay and you will see it. He dropped if after it crossed, but the ref applied the "he has to maintain control past the ground rule" incorrectly. Because by rule the play officially ended when he reached the ball across the line.

I saw it. I agree it should have been a TD in the spirit of the game. I'm just saying by the current rule it was a good overturn.

The "play ends when ball brakes the plane" rule applies only once the player becomes a runner, he must complete the catch first. We can argue that in the spirit it should be a catch, and I may very well agree, but by the rule this was the correct call.