Do you agree with the new OT rules in the playoffs?

[Vrill]

I'm fine with the new OT rules.

Just because something goes against you, doesn't mean its a bad system. If we had won in OT, this thread wouldn't of been created. Simple as that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If you're talking about the regular season, I prefer the current OT rules to a tie. That being the case (and certainly in the playoffs) which team gets to choose to kick or receive has to be decided. As I posted before, IMO any football related method is superior to pure luck.

I prefer dispensing with OT in regular season and letting the tie stand as such after 4 quarters. However, I recognize fans don't like a "kissing your sister" outcome, therefore the networks don't like, therefore the league does not like it. I also imagine there's some general annoyance with the asymmetricality in the standings that results from ties, maybe because it eliminates late season tie breaker dramas.

Accepting these practical realities, the solution is simple, I believe, for both regular season and playoffs. Flip the coin for first possession. Use the current rules except that if the team with first possession scores a TD, the opponent gets a chance to answer.

Since that approach is equitable whereas the current one is not, as previously noted I draw the conclusion the league is willing to forgo equity for the chance to get the game over faster.

OT games are relatively few; the ones where the first OT possession ends in a TD as in the Seattle game are fewer. It seems the few times games are extended under my revised rule vs. the current one should be manageable. The problem in reality seems smaller than the one contemplated in the inequitable rules.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If you're talking about the regular season, I prefer the current OT rules to a tie. That being the case (and certainly in the playoffs) which team gets to choose to kick or receive has to be decided. As I posted before, IMO any football related method is superior to pure luck.

I'd like to make a small argument for the merits of the coin flip, though I find it defective under the current OT rules.

Games turn on just plain luck from time to time. An odd bounce, a gust of wind, a loose piece of turf can determine the outcome of a game. The blind luck in the humble and hated coin flip could be viewed as a recognition of the significant element of luck in the game.

I prefer the thing that reflects even remotely the realities of the game played on the field over an artificial construct that attempts in a flawed way to determine "who's better" that does not involve the scoreboard.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If we had won in OT, this thread wouldn't of been created. Simple as that.

No, it's not that simple, not for me anyway. As far as I'm concerned the rule that invalidated Bryant's catch is a poor one just as the inequity in not allowing a team to answer the opponent's touchdown is obvious.

 

[GoPGo]

Yeah, it's fair. Defense should matter in the NFL. It doesn't in college OT. If your defense lets the other team score a TD then you lose because your defense wasn't up to the task. Defense should matter. The NFL is doing enough already to eliminate defense, let's not help them.

How about just have the coaches meet at midfield and decide it over a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock? Best out of 5 wins and nobody gets injured. To make sure there's no cheating (because of guys like Belicheat) they can do it back-to-back and the referee can call the winner.

 

[GoPGo]

No, it's not that simple, not for me anyway. As far as I'm concerned the rule that invalidated Bryant's catch is a poor one just as the inequity in not allowing a team to answer the opponent's touchdown is obvious.

There's nothing wrong with the reception rule. It's one of the only black and white rules in a game that is plagued with "judgment calls."

 

[GoPGo]

I'm fine with the new OT rules.

Just because something goes against you, doesn't mean its a bad system. If we had won in OT, this thread wouldn't of been created. Simple as that.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean these opinions didn't pre-date 01/18/15. I said a long time ago they didn't do enough to fix it. It's just not something that is routinely talked about.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There's nothing wrong with the reception rule. It's one of the only black and white rules in a game that is plagued with "judgment calls."

What constitutes a "football move" is a judgement call subject to a lot of debate; it is in fact "plagued". Even the guy who defended the play thought it was a catch, as did many of the ex-NFL players who commented on it, even if it wasn't as defined by the rules.

Bryant made a legitimate football play that the current rules do not respect.

 

[TJV]

I prefer dispensing with OT in regular season ...

I'd like to make a small argument for the merits of the coin flip,...

Couldn't disagree more x 2 as previously explained.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

How about just have the coaches meet at midfield and decide it over a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock? Best out of 5 wins and nobody gets injured. To make sure there's no cheating (because of guys like Belicheat) they can do it back-to-back and the referee can call the winner.

I, literally, have no clue what this has to do with what I said.

 

[Raptorman]

I'm fine with the new OT rules.

Just because something goes against you, doesn't mean its a bad system. If we had won in OT, this thread wouldn't of been created. Simple as that.

Well, actually this thread was created 4 years ago and brought back to life.

 

[GoPGo]

What constitutes a "football move" is a judgement call subject to a lot of debate; it is in fact "plagued".

Blandino clearly pointed out that the "football move" concept doesn't play into it. Bryant's momentum in making the catch made it impossible for him to stay on his feet. Steps or not, he was stumbling to the ground the entire time. Therefore, possession must be maintained all the way to the ground. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Even the guy who defended the play thought it was a catch, as did many of the ex-NFL players who commented on it, even if it wasn't as defined by the rules.

Since when do players' opinions trump the rule book?

Bryant made a legitimate football play that the current rules do not respect.

He would have if he had controlled the ball all the way to the ground, but he didn't.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Blandino clearly pointed out that the "football move" concept doesn't play into it. Bryant's momentum in making the catch made it impossible for him to stay on his feet. Steps or not, he was stumbling to the ground the entire time. Therefore, possession must be maintained all the way to the ground. It doesn't get any simpler than that.



Since when do players' opinions trump the rule book?



He would have if he had controlled the ball all the way to the ground, but he didn't.

Player opinions don't trump the rules. For the umpteenth time, I don't believe it to be a bad call; I believe it to be a bad rule. Players tend to be good judges of what constitutes a good football play.

The rule for reference is in Article 3:

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten.../pdfs/11_2013_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

If you examine the rules closely, the "football move" concept can't be separated from the "go to the ground" concept.

The "go to the ground" element of the rule is as follows:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground...."

So the question becomes, when is the act of catching complete, thereby differentiating an incompletion from a fumble or down by contact. The completion of the act of catching is defined in the "football move" provision, which is defined as an "act common to the game, i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc."

I did not read Blandio's take, but if you accurately represented his comments then he's obfuscating. It does come down to whether Bryant's 2 steps plus a dive constitute a football move.

I said the rule is "bad" and that's probably not quite correct, except that "etc." makes for vagueness.

The implementation of the rule is poor. What happened is that the controversial Megatron TD incompletion ruling a few years back was closely examined by the league, upheld, and then used as benchmark for interpretation going forward. And that interpretation comes down to what constitutes the intervening football move. I believe, as many do, that the NFL erred in the Megatron case and has propagated it.

 

[sschind]

We got screwed with this new OT rule. If you want to make things fair by giving the other team a chance when the first team kicks a FG, then shouldn't you give the other team a chance when the first team scores a TD? It makes no sense.

How so? had we not had the new OT rule we would be playing under the old OT rule and we would have still lost. The new rule does benefit the team that kicks off in OT because now all they need to do to give their offense a chance is prevent a TD. Hold the receiving team to a FG and your offense gets a chance to win or tie it. The rule may not go far enough which is what you are saying and I can see that but it hardly screwed us. The rule was made to lessen the "winning the toss automatically meant winning the game" mentality that so many people had.

Somehow if the situation were reversed (Packers scored the TD) I doubt many Packer fans would be thinking the Seahawks got screwed.

The league's OT rule is completely screwed up. IMO every team should get an equal amount of possessions throughout the entire process of deciding a winner.

Football isn't made for a sudden death OT, it's not hockey.

I disagree with that. I could see each team getting 1 possession but if both teams fail to score (or score the same) on their first possession in OT and team 1 scores on their second I don't think team 2 should get another shot.

 

[GoPGo]

Player opinions don't trump the rules. For the umpteenth time, I don't believe it to be a bad call; I believe it to be a bad rule. Players tend to be good judges of what constitutes a good football play.

The rule for reference is in Article 3:

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten.../pdfs/11_2013_ForwardPass_BackPass_Fumble.pdf

If you examine the rules closely, the "football move" concept can't be separated from the "go to the ground" concept.

The "go to the ground" element of the rule is as follows:

"If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground...."

Actually, it can, according the the first rule you posted right here. Bryant could not have avoided going to the ground. The stumbling "steps" were an attempt to avoid going down, but he couldn't pull it off. Therefore, it was in the act of making the catch. Simple. There's nothing more to argue here.

 

[GoPGo]

Somehow if the situation were reversed (Packers scored the TD) I doubt many Packer fans would be thinking the Seahawks got screwed.

No, I wouldn't, and the Packers didn't get screwed either. But I would certainly be thinking we were lucky to win that coin toss and that should never be a significant factor in winning a game. And I would still be hoping for OT to be fixed, as I have for years.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Actually, it can, according the the first rule you posted right here. Bryant could not have avoided going to the ground. The stumbling "steps" were an attempt to avoid going down, but he couldn't pull it off. Therefore, it was in the act of making the catch. Simple. There's nothing more to argue here.

Since you did not address the argument in post #63, I have nothing more to discuss with you. In that we agree.

 

[GoPGo]

Since you did not address the argument in post #63, I have nothing more to discuss with you. In that we agree.

Actually, I did, specifically. Not sure why you're confused about that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Actually, I did, specifically. Not sure why you're confused about that.

Since you asked, I'll spell it out for you. This repetition should not be necessary:

Again, the official must first determine if a catch has been made before considering the "going to the ground" provision.

Again, the completion of the act of catching is defined in the "football move" provision, which is an "act common to the game, i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc."

The question then becomes whether Bryant controlled the ball long enough to advance it or ward off a defender. Many current and former players, including the guy who defended the pass, say common football sense dictates he qualified on the former and perhaps the latter.

Whether you agree with that conclusion is at the moment irrelevant. What is relevant is that you did not consider the rule defining a catch, and until you do you're just cherry picking.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If that's not enough, consider the Lance Moore play described in the following link:

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/the-n-f-l-s-worst-rule-going-to-the-ground/?_r=0

Had Bryant come down with the tip of the ball on the goal line, to be consistent the league would have had to conclude it was a catch and a TD, thereby making any argument relating to the "going to the ground" rule irrelevant.

The league has their undies twisted in their implementation of the rule. It needs to be fixed in order to respect what constitutes a football play.

 

[Mondio]

I'd say he "caught" the ball too, but he didn't. I'm fine with the rule like it is though. If you're falling to the ground and fail to hold it and it hits the ground and comes loose, it's NOT a catch.

The same way if you go are tripped up by a defender and are falling to the ground, but take 4 steps forward before hitting the ground and fumble, it's still NOT a fumble since you were contacted by the defender and down by contact.

Bryant was clearly falling to the ground while catching the ball, he clearly had control of it for a period of time in the air as well, but when the ball clearly hits the ground, it clearly comes completely dislodged from his body, NO CATCH. and prior to that, he also had the ball move at least twice in his hands before securing anything.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'd say he "caught" the ball too, but he didn't. I'm fine with the rule like it is though. If you're falling to the ground and fail to hold it and it hits the ground and comes loose, it's NOT a catch.

The same way if you go are tripped up by a defender and are falling to the ground, but take 4 steps forward before hitting the ground and fumble, it's still NOT a fumble since you were contacted by the defender and down by contact.

Bryant was clearly falling to the ground while catching the ball, he clearly had control of it for a period of time in the air as well, but when the ball clearly hits the ground, it clearly comes completely dislodged from his body, NO CATCH. and prior to that, he also had the ball move at least twice in his hands before securing anything.

Again, according to the rule it comes down to the "football move" provision. Did he "advance the ball" with control according to common football sense? If you answer "yes", which I firmly believe to be the case, then the NFL is fairly consistently misapplying their own rule.

 

[Mondio]

with all the rules the benefit receivers and qb's in this league and offense in general, if you're falling to the ground while catching the ball, hang on to it. I don't think it's that big of a deal. To me securing a catch while falling to the ground, but you decide to reach out for the endzone and lose the ball is no different than the RB that is in the flat and looks up field before they catch the ball. Securing the catch is number one, do it and there's no issue.

 

[HardRightEdge]

...and prior to that, he also had the ball move at least twice in his hands before securing anything.

Movement of the ball does not necessarily constitute loss of control according to the rules:

Rule 8, Article 3, Note 2 says:

"If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

I'd say Bryant's slight movement as it went from hand to hand would not constitute loss of possession.

 

[HardRightEdge]

To me securing a catch while falling to the ground, but you decide to reach out for the endzone and lose the ball is no different than the RB that is in the flat and looks up field before they catch the ball. Securing the catch is number one, do it and there's no issue.

As noted in the Moore example above, if a guy secures a catch, reaches for the end zone and loses the ball, the league calls that a TD if it crosses the plane, but an incompletion if it doesn't.

The inconsistency about what constitutes a catch is glaring.

And what's really screwed up in all of this is the Megatron call which solidified how the refs were instructed to implement the rule. Megatron was already in the end zone, across the plane.

The Megatron call and the Moore call are grossly inconsistent.

The rules are sound as they are written; the implementation is a mess.