Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Can the "catch rule" be fixed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 763592"><p>I'm glad you cleared that up. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Changing the rule to allow "quicker" catches with <strong><em>less control</em></strong> is not something I would propose. "Quicker catches" without imposing the requirement of establishing one's self as a runner is more what I have in mind. I don't think anybody could reasonably challenge Jesse James having control of that ball before penetrating the goal line. The issue in nearly all of these cases is not one of control; it's the establishment as a runner that gets called into question, something our professional TV commentators consistently fail to understand.</p><p></p><p>Now, that's not to say there would not be more bang-bang plays that the ref's human eyes would have trouble sussing out since the runner requirement is designed to elongate the process.</p><p></p><p>To that I say, "too bad". The game is about the athleticism, not what a ref can or cannot make out with the human eye. The answer, then, is more cameras and more replays. Replays are commercial cut-aways. Those timeouts substituting for TV timeouts won't elongate game time much. One or two more replays per half should not be an issue. What's really at issue is that NFL wants to keep as much control of the game as possible with the on-field refs. I believe they believe if the refs are not the controllers of the game then the game will get out of control. That's a questionable proposition.</p><p></p><p>"If a player is contacted by a defender, but is not in contact with him after "securing" the ball with the ground it should be a fumble."</p><p></p><p>If I understand that scenario correctly, that is a fumble. Lets say a defender contacts a runner and knocks the ball into the air. If the runner then gains possession of the ball without further contact, hits the ground, and the ball comes loose, that is a fumble. If that's a receiver who never established himself as a runner, then it is incomplete.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 763592"] I'm glad you cleared that up. ;) Changing the rule to allow "quicker" catches with [B][I]less control[/I][/B] is not something I would propose. "Quicker catches" without imposing the requirement of establishing one's self as a runner is more what I have in mind. I don't think anybody could reasonably challenge Jesse James having control of that ball before penetrating the goal line. The issue in nearly all of these cases is not one of control; it's the establishment as a runner that gets called into question, something our professional TV commentators consistently fail to understand. Now, that's not to say there would not be more bang-bang plays that the ref's human eyes would have trouble sussing out since the runner requirement is designed to elongate the process. To that I say, "too bad". The game is about the athleticism, not what a ref can or cannot make out with the human eye. The answer, then, is more cameras and more replays. Replays are commercial cut-aways. Those timeouts substituting for TV timeouts won't elongate game time much. One or two more replays per half should not be an issue. What's really at issue is that NFL wants to keep as much control of the game as possible with the on-field refs. I believe they believe if the refs are not the controllers of the game then the game will get out of control. That's a questionable proposition. "If a player is contacted by a defender, but is not in contact with him after "securing" the ball with the ground it should be a fumble." If I understand that scenario correctly, that is a fumble. Lets say a defender contacts a runner and knocks the ball into the air. If the runner then gains possession of the ball without further contact, hits the ground, and the ball comes loose, that is a fumble. If that's a receiver who never established himself as a runner, then it is incomplete. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: milani
26 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Wisky newbie
Latest: milani
27 minutes ago
Introduce Yourself
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: milani
29 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
46 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
50 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Can the "catch rule" be fixed?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
