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

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:


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.

I'm sure by extension...if the D-back takes two steps in bounds to carry the receiver out of bounds that would be a catch. I think the defensive back has to jump up in the air with the receiver and then throw him out of bounds or to another d-back who can then proceed to throw the receiver out of bounds or to a 3rd defensive player.

I picture some kind of water brigade type action slinging the receiver out of bounds.

There may never be another touchdown pass again

For the record, I don't get upset with the refs. I understand the rule.

I also understand that it will be changed because it lends itself to subjectivity. It's all judgement.

quote:

Originally posted by pablopackerfan:
A TD catch is like porn. You can't define it but you know it when you see it.

Link?

Potter Stewart, concurring in Jacobellis v. Ohio

I take it that's what you were looking for?

I agree that end zone scoring rules should be changed so that they're consistent with other rules regarding possession or receptions.
I wish it were possible to remove all aspects of judgement from making these calls, but I won't hold my breath for that one.
As an aside, I think the rules regarding when a punt is downed needs to be changed as well. I had always learned the ball is dead when the kicking team touches it...now they allow all this slapping the ball around in the hopes of knocking the ball back into the field of play.

Regarding Finley's play specifically, my judgement is he indeed did satisfy all requirements of a "catch". He had possesssion, made a "football move" (took steps), and effectively 'downed' the ball when his knee hit the ground. The play should be over at that point.
Speaking of judgements, my interpretation of the rule that mi'joe posted would be if a receiver voluntarily goes to the ground..., and the key word in the phrase "with or without contact with an opponent" is "with" as opposed to "from" an oppenent. To me, that sound like incidental contact instead of a defender trying to defense a pass. Otherwise, PI rules would apply.

That rule is dumb because you can catch a pass even if the ball touches the ground if your arm is around it. How can any pass touch the ground and it not be an imcompletion? The NFL makes stupid rules. In the Eagles game, Samuel got a ball that clearly hit the ground by the nose of the football but was ruled an int even after replay.

Both of those rules contradict each other.

quote:

Originally posted by Pakrz:
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.

I'm fairly sure that when they abandoned the push-out rule, they said that you aren't allowed to catch the receiver and carry him out - that would still be a TD. I can't quote a rule that says so, though.

I'm not sure about that, dsr. I don't remember there being any clarifying statements when the rule was changed. I'm dying to see it happen just to see what the zebras do!