New Catch Rule Passes Unanimously

[BFritz21]

The league owners voted 32 to 0 to approve the rule:

Quote:ORLANDO, Fla. -- NFL owners approved new rules and bylaws on Tuesday, including unanimously approving the proposal to change the league's catch rule and authorizing in-game ejections from the league's officiating office.

The owners also made permanent the rule change that teams start from the 25-yard line after a touchback on a kickoff or punt. Four bylaws also were approved, including a proposal that teams can trade players that are on injured reserve.

The in-game ejections from the league office is a weird one because are they saying that they'll eject players for things that the officials didn't see on the field?

About a catch:

Quote:For the catch rule, the requirement to maintain control of the ball throughout the process of going to the ground no longer applies. The new rule establishes three elements of a catch: control, in bounds and a "football move."

A football move, will be an act such as a third step, a reach toward the line to gain yardage or the ability to perform such an act. On-field officials will be required to judge whether it occurs.

NFL executive vice president Troy Vincent said last week that the catch will continue to be subject to replay. "If someone asks, 'What is a catch?'" Vincent said, "we can say, 'It's control, two feet and perform a football act.' OK, now that makes sense."

The current proposal will ensure that controversial incompletions -- such as Calvin Johnson's infamous play in 2010 and Dez Bryant's in 2014 -- will instead be ruled completions in the future.

For the new ejection rule, senior vice president of officiating Al Riveron now has the authority to eject players from games for egregious non-football acts. Referees will also continue to have the authority to eject players as well.

The Jets withdrew their proposal to make defensive pass interference a 15-yard penalty. It generated strong discussion but did not have the widespread support to pass.

I don't like it because, if you can't keep control of it when you hit the ground, did you ever really have control? I don't get how that was ever confusing.

[Shake n Blake]

I'm confused by the 2 feet part. Sure it makes sense for sideline catches. What about when a receiver lands on one foot and gets pummeled to the ground? Does he then have to maintain control all the way to the ground because he didn't touch 2 feet to the ground?

[fredtoast]

"It is what it is."

[fredtoast]

(03-27-2018, 02:34 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I don't like it because, if you can't keep control of it when you hit the ground, did you ever really have control?  I don't get how that was ever confusing.

Unless you have already gotten two feet down with possession you still have to maintain control when you hit the ground.

Isn't that right?

[sandwedge]

(03-27-2018, 03:24 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I'm confused by the 2 feet part. Sure it makes sense for sideline catches. What about when a receiver lands on one foot and gets pummeled to the ground? Does he then have to maintain control all the way to the ground because he didn't touch 2 feet to the ground?

So glad they cleared that up!!! Lol
Why not just make it you have to hang on to the ball?

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

Seen tons of catches that were catches then the Receiver goes out of bounds and loses it and they called it an incompletion.

Never liked this, when you have complete control of the ball in bounds it is obvious. The ground or something else knocking
it out after the catch should not make it an incompletion. I like this myself. Also like that they didn't implement that 15 yard
penalty on pass interference which would of led to DB's intentionally interfering.

[Luvnit2]

Any change to the catch rule is an improvement. I have been watching football for over 50 years, the old rule I had no idea anymore what was a catch. I have no issues with 2 feet down and a football move, that is very simple. I never understood 2 feet down, a football move and by the way if you then go to the ground a 4th thing needed, no bobble added so no catch.

I always liked the ground can't cause a fumble so to me this is a lot more consistent with that rule.

[Luvnit2]

(03-27-2018, 04:28 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Seen tons of catches that were catches then the Receiver goes out of bounds and loses it and they called it an incompletion.

Never liked this, when you have complete control of the ball in bounds it is obvious. The ground or something else knocking
it out after the catch should not make it an incompletion. I like this myself. Also like that they didn't implement that 15 yard
penalty on pass interference which would of led to DB's intentionally interfering.

I think they could have added something, any pass interference beyond 25 yards, 1st one for a team is 15 yards. Then, any others becomes a spot foul or minimum of 15 yards (if less than 15 yard spot foul) but could be 60 yards. This would have hampered DB's from blatantly holding guys downfield every play. I don;t like 50 yard spot fouls, I think it is excessive against a defense that already has their hands tied to do their job.

[Pat5775]

(03-27-2018, 02:34 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The league owners voted 32 to 0 to approve the rule:


The in-game ejections from the league office is a weird one because are they saying that they'll eject players for things that the officials didn't see on the field?

About a catch:


I don't like it because, if you can't keep control of it when you hit the ground, did you ever really have control?  I don't get how that was ever confusing.

That ref that ejected Vontaze in the Jacksonville game should have been ejected himself    I'm actually kinda glad the league office is taking more control of ejections. One would think they'd have overruled that @$$hole official last year. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(03-27-2018, 05:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I think they could have added something, any pass interference beyond 25 yards, 1st one for a team is 15 yards. Then, any others becomes a spot foul or minimum of 15 yards (if less than 15 yard spot foul) but could be 60 yards. This would have hampered DB's from blatantly holding guys downfield every play. I don;t like 50 yard spot fouls, I think it is excessive against a defense that already has their hands tied to do their job.

Yeah, at first when i read the rule i liked it because of those giant spot fouls but the more i thought about it i thought it
would of led to DB's intentionally interfering. I like your thoughts here as that would deter this.

(03-27-2018, 05:52 PM)Pat5775 Wrote: That ref that ejected Vontaze in the Jacksonville game should have been ejected himself    I'm actually kinda glad the league office is taking more control of ejections. One would think they'd have overruled that @$$hole official last year. 

Agreed. The refs screw these calls up a lot. They cannot see everything and sometimes automatically react instead of
waiting and calling it right or just letting players play. Shouldn't be able to punish an entire team like this unless they
get it absolutely correct.

[Sled21]

(03-27-2018, 05:52 PM)Pat5775 Wrote: That ref that ejected Vontaze in the Jacksonville game should have been ejected himself    I'm actually kinda glad the league office is taking more control of ejections. One would think they'd have overruled that @$$hole official last year. 

The refs on the field still have the ability to make ejections, and the rule doesn't say anything about the league office overruling them. It's just an extra set of eyes, that, you know, would have caught the infamous Green Bay Ball Tap incident. I would not expect to see any bad calls by the refs overturned with this one....

[Beaker]

The new/old catch rule cames a few months too late for Jesse James and the steelers. That's a shame...lol

[dnkw]

Any chance they can also make a rule change to stop us facing division rivals for our final game (or more specifically, facing Baltimore)? It's getting a bit samey. 

[grampahol]

(03-28-2018, 10:52 AM)dnkw Wrote: Any chance they can also make a rule change to stop us facing division rivals for our final game (or more specifically, facing Baltimore)? It's getting a bit samey. 

Pretty sure Baltimore would like to see that changed since they keep losing the last game like clockwork to none other than us .
Every Baltimore fan probably already has the last game penciled in as a big L.. 

[grampahol]

(03-28-2018, 10:02 AM)Beaker Wrote: The new/old catch rule cames a few months too late for Jesse James and the steelers. That's a shame...lol

Squeeler fans want it made retroactive.. I can't really blame them, but tough junkers.. 

[grampahol]

Seems like the league really liked the 'when is a door not a door?' joke.. When it's ajar.. Instead they replaced door with catch.. I'm almost surprised the new rule doesn't say a catch isn't a catch when it's ajar.. Now THAT would really clear things up .

[PV Bengal]

(03-27-2018, 05:40 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Any change to the catch rule is an improvement. I have been watching football for over 50 years, the old rule I had no idea anymore what was a catch. I have no issues with 2 feet down and a football move, that is very simple. I never understood 2 feet down, a football move and by the way if you then go to the ground a 4th thing needed, no bobble added so no catch.

I always liked the ground can't cause a fumble so to me this is a lot more consistent with that rule.

When I played HS football in the mid-60s, if a "caught ball" hit the ground it was called "incomplete". Period. 

Hells bells, these guys are PROFESSIONALS. If a 17-year-old can play under the rules like I played under, modern professionals ought to be able to play under them as well.

[Sled21]

(03-28-2018, 11:06 AM)grampahol Wrote: Squeeler fans want it made retroactive.. I can't really blame them, but tough junkers.. 

You'd think they were the only team bitten by it.... I remember Eifert having at least one taken away for the same ruling....

[Sled21]

(03-28-2018, 10:52 AM)dnkw Wrote: Any chance they can also make a rule change to stop us facing division rivals for our final game (or more specifically, facing Baltimore)? It's getting a bit samey. 

That will never happen. They changed the schedule so that teams start and end with Division foes to keep those games interesting for teams that are out of contention. It worked. Now, they could switch it up and let us start and finish against Pissburgh or Cleveland once in a while....

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-28-2018, 01:10 PM)Sled21 Wrote: You'd think they were the only team bitten by it.... I remember Eifert having at least one taken away for the same ruling....

And Gresham twice. (Playoffs vs SD and Season game vs Balt).