December 19, 20178 yr Author Never established possession, IMO. So no. He had the ball in his hands until he hit the ground. The ground caused the ball to come loose.
December 19, 20178 yr He had the ball in his hands until he hit the ground. The ground caused the ball to come loose. By the way people are wanting to re-write the rule, that most certainly would have been a catch. The examples of something like this that should not be a catch FAR outnumber situations like James and Dez.
December 19, 20178 yr Yes and no, unless you are fine redefining what a catch is to simply being a "player retaining a ball with two feet in bounds." Something doesn't feel right about a receiver coming down with two feet and in a millisecond following touching the ground the ball is jarred loose and it being deemed a fumble. But I could live with it if that is what is decided... That rule benefits the defense, imo, which is something they could use. It's not perfect. I don't know that any rule will ever be. But IMO if the ground can't cause a fumble, it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion either. I guess that's my mindset.
December 19, 20178 yr He had the ball in his hands until he hit the ground. The ground caused the ball to come loose. Possession is left up to interpretation, unless we found a specific way to define it.
December 19, 20178 yr It's not perfect. I don't know that any rule will ever be. But IMO if the ground can't cause a fumble, it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion either. I guess that's my mindset. GENERALLY the ground can't cause a fumble. Put aside the endzone, in this case it would have been a fumble because James was untouched.
December 19, 20178 yr Do we get over-picky with replay? This is a big thing Bill Simmons and Cousin Sal often talk about. On this week's podcast, someone had emailed Simmons that replay should not be allowed to be slowed beyond certain speed. It must be re-watched in real time or maybe half speed. But millisecond by millisecond is too much.
December 19, 20178 yr Author Possession is left up to interpretation, unless we found a specific way to define it. Right. Not easy.
December 19, 20178 yr Do we get over-picky with replay? This is a big thing Bill Simmons and Cousin Sal often talk about. On this week's podcast, someone had emailed Simmons that replay should not be allowed to be slowed beyond certain speed. It must be re-watched in real time or maybe half speed. But millisecond by millisecond is too much. Yes.
December 19, 20178 yr "The ruling on the field is a touchdown because it looked like it." Not sure how well that will go over when re-writing a rule :lol2: That's basically how I judge most of the football rules. If it looks like a hold it's a hold, if it looks like pass interference it's pass interference. If you have possession and get two feet down and it looks like a catch, it's a catch.
December 19, 20178 yr I’m fine if replay goes away. While that sounds like such a crazy idea given the technology being used, I'm not sure I would be opposed if it was taken away.
December 19, 20178 yr Would this be a catch? Super Bowl XII: Rodger Staubach 45-yard TD to Butch Johnson - NFL Videos No catch with the rule today. Easy call.
December 19, 20178 yr Should it? See post #5, I have no problem with the rule. So yes no catch is fine by me.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.