Should DBs change their play due to new TD catch rule?

Play til the whistle.

If you play after the whistle, i.e. refs have to pull you apart, that will get you a 15 yard penalty.

Finely needs to hold on to that ball. Take the refs out of the equation in that scenario.

I would like to see (Packers) DBs pushing WRs out of bounds on the sidelines / back-of-end zone. IIRC there is no longer the judgement that the WR would have landed in bounds if not pushed by the DB, so why not carry their ass out of bounds?

I agree that it is a good plan if you can make it work or if it happens naturally in the play, but I think it would be tough to teach and execute correctly.

You have to push them after the ball arrives to avoid PI but before they get two feet down in bounds (assuming their feet are not already down as they make the catch). You have a fraction of a second of a window to make that hit.

I would think playing the ball instead would have a higher success rate.

Very similar play in Patriot Game. Patriot 1st TD. Fitzpatrick catches ball in end zone tackled, lands on back in endzone, ball dribbles out. Review, Touchdown confirmed. Tom Brady threw the ball though. Rules are different for Pats games.

Both require a lot of on-field awareness I expect. Not sure if one would have a higher success rate than the other. Playing the ball and missing can often end up in a big play for the offense. I guess I just want to see sound fundamental football (is this where I say I care so much?). So far GB has looked a little sloppy on defense this season and I suppose that is directly related to the lack of OTAs. Haven't watched much of other games so far so I can't say if all teams are lacking in sound fundamental football.


Watched the Packers game yesterday than headed out to the ACL Music Fest.

Caught all or parts of:
AWOL Nation
Ryan Bingham & The Dead Horses
Death From Above 1979
Gomez
Fleet Foxes
Social Distortion
Arcade Fire

quote:

Originally posted by norm:
Very similar play in Patriot Game. Patriot 1st TD. Fitzpatrick catches ball in end zone tackled, lands on back in endzone, ball dribbles out. Review, Touchdown confirmed. Tom Brady threw the ball though. Rules are different for Pats games.

Like I said in another thread, if Finley's had been originally ruled a TD, I doubt that it would have been overturned in review either

Very good point Hauser.

That has a lot to do with some of these questionable calls.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeSafety:
Play til the whistle.

If you play after the whistle, i.e. refs have to pull you apart, that will get you a 15 yard penalty.

Or a PI penalty that puts the ball on the 1 yard line.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:



Watched the Packers game yesterday than headed out to the ACL Music Fest.

Caught all or parts of:
AWOL Nation
Ryan Bingham & The Dead Horses
Death From Above 1979
Gomez
Fleet Foxes
Social Distortion
Arcade Fire

I need to move. Florida has the culture and music scene of Nome, Alaska.

Arcade Fire was okay... I would have left before they started (last act of the night) but my 15 yr old wanted to stay. Either to listen to them or ogle the bikini's parading around all day in the 90+ degree heat.

Just pick up the WR's and carry them past the end line or out of bounds.

I think the rule sucks...

If a guy runs the ball past the goal line, it's a TD as soon as the ball breaks the plane. Everything that happens after that doesn't matter... it's a dead ball.

A catch should be the same. Possession + two feet down (Or an elbow or whatever) and the ball should be dead. Touchdown.

I'm a bit surprised the rule hasn't been adjusted yet by the league.

The trouble is:

What is a catch?

What is possession?

The rule is there to demonstrate possession and I don't have any real problem with it.

I hate the rule. We know a catch when we see it, that Finley play was a catch.

I think when you try to wordsmith a "catch" too much you create situations like this.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeSafety:
The trouble is:

What is a catch?

What is possession?

I suppose you're going to bring up the whole "angels dancing on the head of pin" thing too.

quote:

Originally posted by BrainDed:
We know a catch when we see it,

Yep, using that as the rule to determine a catch will surely get rid of all the arguments.

quote:

I think when you try to wordsmith a "catch" too much you create situations like this.

Disagree.

Everything has to be defined.

Catch
Possession
In bounds
Out of bounds
Touchdown
Down by contact
etc...

The NFL chose to require an extreme amount of possession to be displayed to determine a catch. I can sort of see their point. I mean if you lessen the requirement it becomes even more of a subjective judgment call and will end up in more arguments.

Catch the fricken ball.

Hold on to it.

If you can't do that, don't blame it on the refs.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeSafety:
I mean if you lessen the requirement it becomes even more of a subjective judgment call and will end up in more arguments.

That's pretty much what's wrong with this current rule. Two feet in and possession. Pretty simple.

This rule will be changed eventually.

In other words, what Pakrz said.

quote:

Originally posted by Brak:

Two feet in and possession.

That is the current rule.

Possession of the ball with two feet in...with the nonsensical maintaining of possession thrown in there to really simplify things. You can't objectively determine that, unless you institute some kind of "maintaining
possession" clock.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:
I would like to see (Packers) DBs pushing WRs out of bounds on the sidelines / back-of-end zone. IIRC there is no longer the judgement that the WR would have landed in bounds if not pushed by the DB, so why not carry their ass out of bounds?

This.

Don't know why DBs aren't taught to push the guy out if he's in the air anywhere near the sideline/endline. They continue to try to strip the ball or knock it out and miss more often than not. The white sideline/endline doesn't move; it's a sure thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:
I would like to see (Packers) DBs pushing WRs out of bounds on the sidelines / back-of-end zone. IIRC there is no longer the judgement that the WR would have landed in bounds if not pushed by the DB, so why not carry their ass out of bounds?

Can you imagine if a player jumps into the air in the endzone and makes the catch... only to be caught mid-air by a d-back and carried 5 yards out of bounds? By rule, no catch. They would change that rule at first opportunity.

The "maintaining possession" clock expires when the receiver is able to perform an act common to the game after making the catch.

Not having such a requirement is what will get you into a subjective nightmare.

Is possession controlling the ball for:
1 second?
.1 seconds?
.01 seconds?
.001 seconds?
.0001 seconds?
a single freeze frame image from a TV camera?

What is possession without some kind of extra requirement?

I remember the great Football Move debate from years ago.

This rule will be changed eventually.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:
By rule, no catch. They would change that rule at first opportunity.

Maybe they would, but so what? That's the rule now; both feet have to be in. The old rule gave us a hero in Poole, but they said it was too hard to judge if a guy would have gotten both feet down, hence the two-foot rule. My point is why not push 'em out for a sure thing rather than hope you can dislodge/knock away the ball?

quote:

Originally posted by Brak:
I remember the great Football Move debate from years ago.

This rule will be changed eventually.

What will be or should be the new requirement?

What is possession if we can't use the current rule?

If Finley's play were in the open field, should it have been a catch and a fumble? I wouldn't agree with that.

quote:

My point is why not push 'em out for a sure thing rather than hope you can dislodge/knock away the ball?

I'm completely with you.

Something like the previous rule, I think. Possession when both feet are in. What happens after that will not matter.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeSafety:
If Finley's play were in the open field, should it have been a catch and a fumble?

Nope, it would have just been a catch. Ground can't cause a fumble.

That right there is the contradiction IMO of this rule.

ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion

Considering the defender made contact with Finley on his way down, that would've been ruled a catch and down by contact - first down GB. Instead, since it's the EZ, Finley needs to hang onto the ball all the way into the post-game shower or it's incomplete. A lack of consistency and introducing an opportunity for more subjectivity = a crappy rule.

The rule is the same in the field of play as it is in the end zone. EKB had the answer- Finley just needs to hang onto the ball.

It's not the same. If a guy catches a ball on the 30 yard line, gets both feet down and goes down with contact from a defender, it's a catch even if it pops out when he hits the ground.

With no contact from the defender, then it would be ruled a catch and a fumble since he wasn't down by contact.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerHawk:
It's not the same. If a guy catches a ball on the 30 yard line, gets both feet down and goes down with contact from a defender, it's a catch even if it pops out when he hits the ground.

With no contact from the defender, then it would be ruled a catch and a fumble since he wasn't down by contact.

Link

quote:

Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3, Item 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 51) states that “if a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact with an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball after he touches the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”

quote:

Originally posted by FreeSafety:
The trouble is:

What is a catch?

What is possession?

I thought after Finley pulled the ball in and brought it to his side and made a couple of small steps it was a catch. The ground caused the fumble. It would have been a catch at the 50, but not in the endzone?? Total BS IMO.

No it wouldn't have been a catch at the 50 according to the current rule.

See MJ's post right above yours.

One big reason many fans get upset with the refs is because they don't know the rules.