NFL ratings, TV deals, Jersey sales, Rule changes, Expansion, etc

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Of course the NFL had keep a part of the catch that keep creating controversy and protects the offense. 1 & 2 are all that is needed. #3 is stupid.
Go back to the old rule 1 & 2 only.


NFL teams unanimously approve simplified catch rule - NFL.com

I think it's about formulation.

IMHNNESO (FYI, this stands for: In My Humble Non-Native-English-Speaker Opinion) once you have the concept of "control of the ball", you must define a time element.

Because how would you precisely define controlling the ball other than having the ball NOT moving... for a given period of time ?

So the final part simply is a way to phrase that time element without the word "time", so it looks less subjective...

All there's to remember is that they got rid of the "surviving the ground" part, which created so much controversy.

I think it might take a few weeks before the rule is consistently applied the same way, but I feel like it's a step in the direction of closing the gap between the rule and how people think it should be.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

I think it's about formulation.

IMHNNESO (FYI, this stands for: In My Humble Non-Native-English-Speaker Opinion) once you have the concept of "control of the ball", you must define a time element.

Because how would you precisely define controlling the ball other than having the ball NOT moving... for a given period of time ?

So the final part simply is a way to phrase that time element without the word "time", so it looks less subjective...

All there's to remember is that they got rid of the "surviving the ground" part, which created so much controversy.


I think it might take a few weeks before the rule is consistently applied the same way, but I feel like it's a step in the direction of closing the gap between the rule and how people think it should be.

However the old rule is ok on the sideline, when the receiver catches the ball near the out of bounds, catches the ball, gets two feet down and gets pushed out of bounds or his momentum forces him out of bounds. That is still ok. No need to make a third move. Why? Because it helps the offense.
How about the new rule for tackling. Really bad.
They have never and will never throw a flag for a ball carrier or offensive player that lowers their head and initiates contact. This only get applied defensive players.
Player lowering head to inflict contact now subject to 15-yard penalty and possible ejection | National | oleantimesherald.com

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

However the old rule is ok on the sideline, when the receiver catches the ball near the out of bounds, catches the ball, gets two feet down and gets pushed out of bounds or his momentum forces him out of bounds. That is still ok. No need to make a third move. Why? Because it helps the offense.
How about the new rule for tackling. Really bad.
They have never and will never throw a flag for a ball carrier or offensive player that lowers their head and initiates contact. This only get applied defensive players.
Player lowering head to inflict contact now subject to 15-yard penalty and possible ejection | National | oleantimesherald.com

Overall I do think the new rule is meant to call more catches, so yeah, it will help the offense a bit.