Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Catch Rule...Discussion Thread

124»

Comments

  • #92
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman wrote: »
    Again another one I disagree with. Looked on all the replays like he lost control or bobbled it for a second but had his hand back on it in control by the time he hit the ground and broke the plane. IMO.

    But the rule that it's a touchback is ridiculous, IMO

    to be honest, the furore over the whole catch rule is one thing, but at least you keep the ball. Losing possession of the ball because its fumbled out makes little or no sense to me whatsoever and is a worse ruling and worse consequence than a no catch rule/call. At least the Steelers had more chances, the Jets and then on Sunday night the Raiders had the ball at the one and all of a sudden they hand it over because it was fumbled and recovered out of bounds.


  • #93
    TOss Sweep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,905 ✭✭✭TOss Sweep


    Going to be a fun 2018 season
    The new rules defining a catch include:

    1. Control of the ball.
    2. Two feet down or another body part.
    3. A football move such as:
    » A third step;
    » Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
    » Or the ability to perform such an act.

    The key change to the rule eliminated the "going-to-the-ground" element of the previous rule.

    DY0-EqFVQAAKBRY.jpg


  • #94
    BizzyC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    It's definitely a step in the right direction.
    The interesting thing to see going forward though will be how many plays that were previously defined as dropped passes now become fumbles by the WR....


  • #95
    bruschi
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭bruschi


    BizzyC wrote: »
    It's definitely a step in the right direction.
    The interesting thing to see going forward though will be how many plays that were previously defined as dropped passes now become fumbles by the WR....

    absolutely.

    also, how does it affect the "bobble" on sideline catches. Ones where a catch is made, 2 feet in bounds, but then the ball bobbles a bit and the old "didnt have full possession" rule. Is that still applicable? Same as if they catch it fall out of bounds and dont maintain it in full out of bounds but never lose possession of the ball. Is that now a catch?


  • #96
    BizzyC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    bruschi wrote: »
    BizzyC wrote: »
    It's definitely a step in the right direction.
    The interesting thing to see going forward though will be how many plays that were previously defined as dropped passes now become fumbles by the WR....

    absolutely.

    also, how does it affect the "bobble" on sideline catches. Ones where a catch is made, 2 feet in bounds, but then the ball bobbles a bit and the old "didnt have full possession" rule. Is that still applicable? Same as if they catch it fall out of bounds and dont maintain it in full out of bounds but never lose possession of the ball. Is that now a catch?
    If they satisfy 1 & 2, but lose the ball going to ground in the catch without #3, then I still expect an incomplete.
    If they can manage some sort of attempted football move and lose possession on the ground afterwards, then I'd now expect a catch.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman


    BizzyC wrote: »
    If they satisfy 1 & 2, but lose the ball going to ground in the catch without #3, then I still expect an incomplete.
    If they can manage some sort of attempted football move and lose possession on the ground afterwards, then I'd now expect a catch.

    Is surviving the ground still a thing?

    From those recommendations it's not clear. Surprise surprise.


  • #98
    Knex*
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,475 ✭✭✭✭Knex*


    I never had an issue with the previous rule. I thought it was clear, and the main problem was around commentators and such not actually reading up on the specifics.

    At first glance, this new rule is ambiguous and unhelpful.


  • #99
    The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,380 ✭✭✭The Reservoir Dubs Anchorman


    Knex. wrote: »
    I never had an issue with the previous rule. I thought it was clear, and the main problem was around commentators and such not actually reading up on the specifics.

    At first glance, this new rule is ambiguous and unhelpful.

    On first glance its not any more ambiguous than the previous rule IMO.

    But as with everything we'll have to see how the referees interpret it.


  • #100
    TOss Sweep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,905 ✭✭✭TOss Sweep


    For me it was inconsistency all round when it came to the previous rule.

    The rule itself made sense but the inconsistency of the refs apply the rule caused certain commentators and certain fans to argue the rule badly and just plain wrong because they just didn't want to understand the rule. I think had the refs stuck to their guns and called it right from the get go there would never have been any debates on its

    This change is going to lead to the same debates because there will still be controversial inconsistent calls by refs and the same people who wanted it changed will be the ones telling us how awful the catch rule is.


Advertisement