Thread: How to Fix the NFL Catch Rule

Disclaimer: This is not a good idea just because it happens to come from a Broncos fan—it's a good idea just because it's a good idea that worked flawlessly for decades until the Competition Committee insisted on incomprehensibly screwing it up so badly. And, just to be clear in case spiker reads this: It's also not a slam on refs doing their best to correctly apply the dogs dinner of a rulebook the Committee keeps handing them along with the blame for deciphering and enforcing it.



Possession and control on the ground at any point before the ball meets the ground: That used to be all a catch required, and still should be. Though it's certainly interesting that the primary team the revised rule screws is whoever's playing NE* this week, and that Gronk was awarded a TD despite a bobbled ball sliding along the ground for several second straight that isn't a catch under the previous NOR current rule.

I felt like I was being lectured to by a screaming x-rated Ray Stevens but, putting the histrionics aside, his rule change is mostly common sense. Seems the current rule is: if it's a New England receiver, bobbling the ball or the ball hitting the ground is perfectly okay and, conversely, if the play is defended by New England, it's not a catch, no way no how. For the other 31 teams, we have a fairly consistent rule. This is known, officially, as "Fuk Rule 2" to join Little Tommy's "Fuk Rule 1" that got the whole craziness started - the one about how an obvious fumble is somehow an incomplete pass.

Not to mention the whole fishy-as-hell bit about CBS owning a Sports Bar is Gillette Stadium which just happens to host one or two playoff games every year so CBS can get some payback on their rights deal. So, go shiver in your "Bomb Cyclone" or whatever they want to call a good ol' Nor'easter, God is getting revenge on your devil worship. It's as obvious as watching Dorian Gray at quarterback all these years.

And, for that matter, why does a runner who is falling off the edge of the planet waves a ball toward the aura of the pylon and it's called a touchdown but a receiver can *carry* the ball into the end zone and then have it scrape the earth while finishing the play and it's not a touchdown (unless he's a Patriot)?

Is it just a miserable life being a conspiracy theorist?

I think they should catch the ball.

The rule is fine as it is. To further fix the catch rule they should put a 35 second clock on the replay official. If it takes longer than 35 seconds to rule a catch or non-catch the video evidence is not indisputable.

When I think of how to fix an over-wordy convoluted rule, the first person that I think of is Joel.

Originally Posted by OrangeHoof

And, for that matter, why does a runner who is falling off the edge of the planet waves a ball toward the aura of the pylon and it's called a touchdown but a receiver can *carry* the ball into the end zone and then have it scrape the earth while finishing the play and it's not a touchdown (unless he's a Patriot)?

No, I get that, because a RB always has possession when running the ball: Even if he fumbles the handoff, the fumble is automatically charged to the QB.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

Is it just a miserable life being a conspiracy theorist?

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Originally Posted by Timmy!

I think they should catch the ball.

I think they shouldn't be denied catches they make. That's from a guy who always thought the Bert Emanuel Rule garbage too (and not because it began all the insanity over defining what is/n't a catch.) Anyone who doesn't know how to spell a name in the bible is clearly not to be trusted; OUR Emmanuel doesn't have that problem.

Originally Posted by WTE

The rule is fine as it is. To further fix the catch rule they should put a 35 second clock on the replay official. If it takes longer than 35 seconds to rule a catch or non-catch the video evidence is not indisputable.

Always agreed with that too, for precisely the stated reason. Anything hard to be sure of is the exact opposite of "indisputable" by definition.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

When I think of how to fix an over-wordy convoluted rule, the first person that I think of is Joel.

So you're saying you DO think about me?

Originally Posted by chazoe60

When I think of how to fix an over-wordy convoluted rule, the first person that I think of is Joel.