- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NFL completion rule needs to be changed
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:29 am
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:29 am
Odell Beckham incomplete TD catch
Ground causes Landon Collins to drop ball
The only thing I will say is the officials ruled correctly PER THE RULES of the game. BUT there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that both of the players made the catch and controlled the ball.
It doesn't make sense to me that the ground cannot cause a fumble, but it can disrupt a completed pass? If the receiver has obvious control of the ball prior to making contact with the ground, IMO it should be a completed catch.
In OBJ case the replay official said he didn't make a football move.....no shite, as soon as he secured the ball with both feet down (IN THE ENDZONE) why does he need to make a football move? A running back can lose control of the ball as soon as it breaks the plane, but a receiver has to make sure the defender doesn't strip him AFTER making the catch.
This is not a sour grapes thread, actually won money on the game. Just a thread about how ridiculous some of the NFL rules can be.
Ground causes Landon Collins to drop ball
The only thing I will say is the officials ruled correctly PER THE RULES of the game. BUT there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that both of the players made the catch and controlled the ball.
It doesn't make sense to me that the ground cannot cause a fumble, but it can disrupt a completed pass? If the receiver has obvious control of the ball prior to making contact with the ground, IMO it should be a completed catch.
In OBJ case the replay official said he didn't make a football move.....no shite, as soon as he secured the ball with both feet down (IN THE ENDZONE) why does he need to make a football move? A running back can lose control of the ball as soon as it breaks the plane, but a receiver has to make sure the defender doesn't strip him AFTER making the catch.
This is not a sour grapes thread, actually won money on the game. Just a thread about how ridiculous some of the NFL rules can be.
11
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:29 am to Oddibe
I don't know. Beckham's didn't look like a catch to me.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:31 am to Oddibe
quote:
ground cannot cause a fumble
This is a fallacy. It can.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:32 am to Oddibe
A better example is the Dez non-catch last year, because in my opinion he DID make a football move, which was to dive for the pylon.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:34 am to LSUJuice
Dez's was way more of a coach than OBJ.
And this is an awful thread.
I think they have this down pretty well and they apply it well.
And this is an awful thread.
I think they have this down pretty well and they apply it well.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:35 am to Oddibe
I think Colinsworth hit the nail on the head last night. Even with the rules clarified on what is and isn't a completed catch the last few years, they are still written with language that is interpretable, like "did he become a runner".
Colinsworth said just pick some type of definable criteria and stick with it, whether it's possession and 2 feet, 3 feet, or whatever.
Colinsworth said just pick some type of definable criteria and stick with it, whether it's possession and 2 feet, 3 feet, or whatever.
This post was edited on 11/16/15 at 11:36 am
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:36 am to lob1284
I agree.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:37 am to lob1284
quote:
Colinsworth said just pick some type of definable criteria and stick with it, whether it's possession and 2 feet, 3 feet, or whatever.
Its not that simple.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:42 am to lob1284
quote:Exactly....why does need to become a runner in the end zone?
"did he become a runner".
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:43 am to Oddibe
Because they want to be consistent in and out of the endzone.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:45 am to Oddibe
The ODB one is an anomaly that happens in the endzone.. I thought it was clear that he had possession and two feet down before the ball was knocked out.. With a TD being instantaneous then I presumed it was 6.. The rule makes them do all this other shite, like move and turn to complete a catch though so... The rule was applied correctly but it just seemed odd to me.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:45 am to KosmoCramer
quote:The endzone is already treated completely different. A runner only has to control the ball till it breaks the plane. A receiver has to get 2 feet down and make a football move. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Because they want to be consistent in and out of the endzone.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 11:47 am to Oddibe
quote:
A runner only has to control the ball till it breaks the plane. A receiver has to get 2 feet down and make a football move
You aren't able to see the difference between a runner and a receiver.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 12:09 pm to KosmoCramer
Just because you don't like how an objective standard is applied, does not make the objective standard invalid.
This is the least bad solution to the catch/drop solution, that doesn't credit any non-catches as catches. That's sort of the baseline you want, for any rule.
This is the least bad solution to the catch/drop solution, that doesn't credit any non-catches as catches. That's sort of the baseline you want, for any rule.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 12:33 pm to Oddibe
Pereira's explanation of Odell's non catch is such bullshite. How can you sit there and say "must have control of the ball long enough to turn into a runner. What's that mean? Turn upfield, brace yourself for contact, you have to have the period of time...". There was a play last night where a Cardinals player caught the ball on an underneath crossing route, turned up field and took two steps, was hit from behind and fumbled and ball was scooped up by Seahawks defender. Did he not just do what Pereira's explanation required? Why do they need to make this so difficult?
Yet, a QB or running back can leap over a pile and get hit and fumble but as long as the tip of the ball touches the front plane of the goal line, it's a TD?
A WR has to catch the ball, order dinner, eat, tip the motherfricker, then hand the ball back to the official and it still may not be a "catch".
Yet, a QB or running back can leap over a pile and get hit and fumble but as long as the tip of the ball touches the front plane of the goal line, it's a TD?
A WR has to catch the ball, order dinner, eat, tip the motherfricker, then hand the ball back to the official and it still may not be a "catch".This post was edited on 11/16/15 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 11/16/15 at 12:38 pm to Oddibe
Ok, so how do you want to define a catch? It's a fluid system of events, and any definition is not going to satisfy everyone.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 12:40 pm to SabiDojo
Once a runner crosses the plain it's a TD there. If the balls knocked out its not a fumble.
Once OBJ had control of the ball and 2 feet down play should be over and should be a TD
Once OBJ had control of the ball and 2 feet down play should be over and should be a TD
This post was edited on 11/16/15 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 11/16/15 at 12:41 pm to Oddibe
Neither one of those were catches, and it seems pretty clear to me. If you want to call those catches then that isn't far away from saying that anything that hits your hands should be a catch. Controlling for a split second then dropping it seems pretty clear to me that it should be a drop. If they really had it then keeping it shouldn't be so hard.
Posted on 11/16/15 at 12:42 pm to Oddibe
This is the worst I have seen
The rule leaves you open to this. How in the world this isn't considered a catch and then down by contact is beyond me. I know it "was called correctly" but that just mean the rule is broken. 3 steps with the ball, on the ground, then it comes out.
I don't have video but there are other bad ones this year: Ben Watson incomplete pass against the Colts where he took about 4 steps and the Devonta Freeman TD that got called back where he ran about 5 yards with the ball into the endzone before he hit the ground and it came out
The rule leaves you open to this. How in the world this isn't considered a catch and then down by contact is beyond me. I know it "was called correctly" but that just mean the rule is broken. 3 steps with the ball, on the ground, then it comes out.
I don't have video but there are other bad ones this year: Ben Watson incomplete pass against the Colts where he took about 4 steps and the Devonta Freeman TD that got called back where he ran about 5 yards with the ball into the endzone before he hit the ground and it came out
Posted on 11/16/15 at 12:45 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
Once a runner crosses the plain it's a TD there. If the balls knocked out its not a fumble.
But to be a runner you have to have control of the ball first before you cross the plane, right? Otherwise, you are in the process of a catch, and you must complete the catch.
If OBJ hadn't left his feet, I would agree it was a catch. But he didn't.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News