2017 NFL thread v. Patriots Dynasty

[El Barto]

When judging by a specific NFL rule, it was not a catch.  By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown.

Which is better?

[Podaar]

Wow, are you guys still hashing this around? I'm tempted to think some here are being deliberately obtuse and just want to argue.

Take Gronks catch in the same game. Remember how he grabbed the ball on both sides, pulled the ball to his chest while rolling in the air,  then landed in bounds while never loosing control?

What if on the same grab, he instead extends his arms and makes contact with the ground. When he does, one of his hands rolls up the side of the ball so the back of his hand is pinning the ball against the ground. Once he finishes hitting the ground he quickly readjusts his hand to firmly grab it. Would any of you be arguing for a catch then?

[jingle.boy]

If his bottom hand was still under the ball, yes I would be.  Maybe it (the actual catch and/or this hypothetical scenario) wouldn't be such a 'hot' topic if it wasn't such a monumentally pivotal call.  And maybe we wouldn't be discussing it as much if the Steelers did subsequently get a TD.

This is all just friendly discourse.  We can have that nowadays... can't we?   

[bosk1]

This is all just friendly discourse.  We can have that nowadays... can't we?   

Exactly.  Not sure why the need to name call, Podaar.  And coming from you, I'm surprised and not a little disappointed.

[Podaar]

This is all just friendly discourse.  We can have that nowadays... can't we?   

Exactly.  Not sure why the need to name call, Podaar.  And coming from you, I'm surprised and not a little disappointed.

I'm very sorry. My intent wasn't to belittle anyone, but I totally see how it's taken that way. As we all have learned from my posts over the years, I have difficulty expressing my thoughts well.

Again, all apologies and please ignore the obtuse comment.

[bosk1]

You'd have to be obtuse to think I wouldn't. 

[Podaar]

 

[edit] I'll increase my donation to the board this year. Will that help? [/edit]

[pg1067]

he don't love in the middle of the dive

I certainly hope not.  That might be an even bigger controversy than Nipplegate!

 

[TAC]

For the record, earlier this season,  Gronk caught a ball in the air in the end zone but when his body hit the ground it became dislodged and ruled incomplete.



Anyway, just watched the Mic’d Up of Jimmy GQ on the SF final drive. Awesome stuff. Brady Jr.

[eric42434224]

When judging by a specific NFL rule, it was not a catch.  By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown.

Which is better?

I am not sure I understand your question.   What do you mean by "better"
 

[pg1067]

When judging by a specific NFL rule, it was not a catch.  By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown.

Which is better?

I am not sure I understand your question.   What do you mean by "better"
 

He was asking whether you'd rather have these things decided by:

1. applying a rule (which may or may not comport with any given individual's subjective assessment of what is and isn't a "catch"); or

2. having the officials on the field saying, "looks/doesn't look like a catch to me" (keeping in mind that the posts on this topic have illustrated a distinct difference of opinion about whether James did or didn't "catch" the ball, regardless of the details of any given rule).

For me, #1 is the far superior option, and I couldn't disagree more with the statement that "By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown."

[eric42434224]

When judging by a specific NFL rule, it was not a catch.  By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown.

Which is better?

I am not sure I understand your question.   What do you mean by "better"
 

He was asking whether you'd rather have these things decided by:

1. applying a rule (which may or may not comport with any given individual's subjective assessment of what is and isn't a "catch"); or

2. having the officials on the field saying, "looks/doesn't look like a catch to me" (keeping in mind that the posts on this topic have illustrated a distinct difference of opinion about whether James did or didn't "catch" the ball, regardless of the details of any given rule).

For me, #1 is the far superior option, and I couldn't disagree more with the statement that "By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown."

I agree # 1 in general is the preferred option, as it is more objective.  But I also do not think this specific rule is a good rule.  So as it is now, neither is "better".  But there will always be a subjective component to interpreting the rule itself, as well as interpreting visual evidence in applying the rule.  So the eye-ball test, and common sense will always be part of #1.  But there is no reason #1 and #2 have to be mutually exclusive.  We can have a rule that makes sense and apply that rule.
I thought my point was clear in my response, but I guess it wasn't. 

To answer the question then, my answer would be:

3) None of the above.  Make the rule better and apply that rule.

[El Barto]

The problem is that you really can't remove rules, or aspects/components of rules now. They have to be more specific rather than less, and the more specific they become, the more people will be pissed off about situations like what happened or their general inability to know what the hell a catch is anymore.

In this case I don't know what tweak to the rule could be implemented. Seems like "ball hitting ground then moving around in receiver's hands equals no dice" is pretty simple, and for the most part reasonable.

[eric42434224]

The problem is that you really can't remove rules, or aspects/components of rules now. They have to be more specific rather than less, and the more specific they become, the more people will be pissed off about situations like what happened or their general inability to know what the hell a catch is anymore.

In this case I don't know what tweak to the rule could be implemented. Seems like "ball hitting ground then moving around in receiver's hands equals no dice" is pretty simple, and for the most part reasonable.

I do not share your assessment that you cant remove rules, or aspects/components of rules.  I understand that some will agree with the rule as it stands.  I saw that as a clear catch and touchdown, and do not feel that the rule makes sense.  I feel that there needs to be a re-working of that rule to somehow allow that type of play to stand.  That's all.  Not interested in getting into a debate about it.  Just stating my POV.

I went back and read my previous post, and perhaps I worded it it more as a statement of fact, so I will edit it here:

When judging by the specific NFL rule, it was not a catch.  By my own personal eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown.

I wish they could, and would, fairly and reasonably change the rules to have that be a catch.   I know some will disagree that is possible, and some will argue it isn't even needed.  That's cool, and I respect that.

[Stadler]

When judging by a specific NFL rule, it was not a catch.  By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown.

Which is better?

I am not sure I understand your question.   What do you mean by "better"
 

He was asking whether you'd rather have these things decided by:

1. applying a rule (which may or may not comport with any given individual's subjective assessment of what is and isn't a "catch"); or

2. having the officials on the field saying, "looks/doesn't look like a catch to me" (keeping in mind that the posts on this topic have illustrated a distinct difference of opinion about whether James did or didn't "catch" the ball, regardless of the details of any given rule).

For me, #1 is the far superior option, and I couldn't disagree more with the statement that "By all other standards, including the eyeball test and common-sense, it was a catch and touchdown."

Seeing as FOR ME there is no such thing as "common sense" (it's just another way of saying "in my opinion"), there really isn't any choice.   At least with #1, it's replicable and predictable, regardless of who is the official and who is the receiver.  That's the most important factor in my opinion.   

[eric42434224]

Yeah, pretty sure no one here is advocating there not be a rule to enforce.  Just advocating for a different rule, that makes more sense, to enforce.

[jingle.boy]

Seeing as FOR ME there is no such thing as "common sense"

In general, or in the NFL?

Seeing as FOR ME there is no such thing as "common sense" it's just another way of saying "in my opinion"), there really isn't any choice.   At least with #1, it's replicable and predictable, regardless of who is the official and who is the receiver.  That's the most important factor in my opinion.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

So apparently, the Packers broke a rule for putting Rodgers on IR twice without a second injury. I'm sure nothing will come of it, but apparently other teams feel that the Packers should be made to release Rodgers, which incidentally would be in his best interest.

[Stadler]

Seeing as FOR ME there is no such thing as "common sense"

In general, or in the NFL?

In general.    99 times out of 100, "It's just common sense" follows an opinion that can't be articulated or defended in any more substantial way. 

[El Barto]

So apparently, the Packers broke a rule for putting Rodgers on IR twice without a second injury. I'm sure nothing will come of it, but apparently other teams feel that the Packers should be made to release Rodgers, which incidentally would be in his best interest.

Wow. Seems that the league rule requires him to be cut once he's healthy. But since when does the league give a damn about the rules? They'll ignore it.

[El Barto]

Damn, Buffalo RB got Joe Theismann'd on us. That was ugly.

[KevShmev]

Followed by Benjamin making an incredible catch in the back of the end zone while dragging both feet, only for the refs to call it no catch despite reviewing it.  I swear, you can't make this stuff up.

[Dream Team]

Followed by Benjamin making an incredible catch in the back of the end zone while dragging both feet, only for the refs to call it no catch despite reviewing it.  I swear, you can't make this stuff up.

Patriots benefit in a huge way second week in a row. Also the sun came up this morning.

[TAC]

Followed by Benjamin making an incredible catch in the back of the end zone while dragging both feet, only for the refs to call it no catch despite reviewing it.  I swear, you can't make this stuff up.

At least that play was a hell of a lot closer than the Pittsburgh "catch" last week, which also happened on the play preceding the (TD) catch.

[King Postwhore]

I thought you could see that black rubber coming up on that toe.  I'm surprised they called it back.

[TAC]

I thought you could see that black rubber coming up on that toe.  I'm surprised they called it back.

Me too.  I didn't think there was enough disparity to reverse the call on the field.

[King Postwhore]

Exactly.  Great athletic plays are lost with instant replay.

[El Barto]

I thought you could see that black rubber coming up on that toe.  I'm surprised they called it back.

He was dragging his foot before he controlled the ball. Once he pulled the ball in his foot was back up. But hey, we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

[TAC]

But I will always maintain that if the technology is there, then there's an obligation to get the call right. Like in hockey, just because a goal was scored in 1976 when it was offsides, doesn't mean it needs to be allowed nowadays.

[King Postwhore]

I thought you could see that black rubber coming up on that toe.  I'm surprised they called it back.

He was dragging his foot before he controlled the ball. Once he pulled the ball in his foot was back up. But hey, we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

 have to watch it again I didn't see him bobbling the ball. maybe I pulled the referee and was just looking at his feet.

[TAC]

Whatever you do, do not pull the referee!

[KevShmev]

I thought you could see that black rubber coming up on that toe.  I'm surprised they called it back.

He was dragging his foot before he controlled the ball. Once he pulled the ball in his foot was back up. But hey, we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

Who said there was a conspiracy?

[King Postwhore]

Whatever you do, do not pull the referee!

Pulled a ref. . You know, looking at the feet, not the ball.

[TAC]

Whatever you do, do not pull the referee!

Pulled a ref. . You know, looking at the feet, not the ball.

 

Gotcha! One can never be too sure.

[King Postwhore]

 

 okay I saw the replay and when he actually stopped juggling the ball one foot was already out of bounds. So yeah it wasn't a catch.