It should be a catch for the sole reason that it would have beaten the Bears and Robs would have spent the rest of the week in football agony.
The rule sucks, but it is what it is. The player must complete the play and the ground cannot force the ball out of his hands when he comes down. We've seen it plenty of times before. This falls in the same category of plays even though it was clear that Johnson just left the ball on the ground after thinking he had scored.
Largely agree. The rule is what it is and under said rule, it is not a catch but to me possession + two feet + one knee = catch.
Interesting because the fans thought it was a TD by their reaction (silence), the line judge who was less than 5 yards away from the play called it a TD, no Bear player ran over to the ref and/or vehemently protested the call. I think most everyone thought this was a TD.
Again, the rule states otherwise but don't like the rule/call.
All CJ had to do was hold the ball until he had hit the ground. He decided to hold it in one hand (unnecessarily) and as he hit the ground it popped out.
I disagree with you Deepie, I don't think he "just left the ball on the ground after thinking he had scored." He lost it in the process of his continuation.
I've posted about this on my blog, and JKSD and I have spoken at length. Everyone agrees that the play was called correctly according to the rule.
If people want to change the rule, what would you change the rule to? The way it is now, it eliminates unnecessary interpretation by refs.
I'm sure this is a direct response to the confusion about the plays last year by Louis Murphy, Greg Jennings, Mike Sims-Walker, and in the Super Bowl by Lance Moore.
The problem was that different refs called the same situation differently in the above cases. Now we have consistency - that is what the rules are there for.
One other thing - the play was ruled incomplete on the field before it was reviewed (which was the correct call).
Lovie Smith knew the play was incomplete right from the get go. Greg Jennings had the exact same thing happen to him last year against the Bears. He was familiar with the rule because the NFL clarified it to teams during training camps and he had experience with it last year.
Lovie said he didn't see any reason to review it in the first place because it was so clear.
We all agree that it was the correct call based on the rule. No one is disputing that. Although I think most everyone thought it was a TD when the play happened including the announcers, the fans, the Lions, the Bears, etc.
The line judge who was closest to the play immediately called it a touchdown. The ref overruled it because he knew the rule.
Again, no one is disputing the rule. It was the correct call but as Deepie (and so many others) said, the rule "sucks."
From Yahoo Sports, "Don't blame the refs for this one. They made the correct decision as dictated by the rule book. The fault lies with the rule itself. Why do there have to be so many conditions to a catch? Toddlers know when a ball is caught and when it isn't. Aside from getting two feet in, what more does the NFL want people to do? Should Calvin Johnson have brought the ball with him to the sideline? Should he hold it for the flight home? Take it to dinner? When does the process of a catch end?"
Actually, Deepie you are wrong. Rob is actually in football agony. All of his posts are an attempt to deflect his true emotions. Knowing this, I feel confident posting Rob's true sentiments: "OMG, the Bears really suck!"
Correct. The rule is clear. No one is disputing that. We are all saying that the rule sucks.
Was listening to Lavar and Dukes on the way home and they vehemently agreed that the rule is stupid and it was a catch. Most everyone agrees that the rule sucks and that it should have been a catch (Dungy, Costas, Peter King, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune, etc.). Read some where yesterday where some one was saying what are they going to expect next, three legs in bounds?
In fact, outside of you, I don't believe that I have read/heard anyone else liking that rule. I am sure Bears fans love the rule this week but if the tables had been turned, they would have hated it. I am taking you for your word when you say that you are being objective but you are the only person I know that likes the rule. That's fine if you honestly believe it. I don't agree and am confident most everyone wouldn't agree.
I am fairly confident that if you showed 10 football fans that play that had not seen it or heard anything of that play, at least 9 of them would say catch.
Regarding changing it, I say possession plus two feet in and/or one knee in is a catch. I am comfortable with instant replay determining that outcome. I am also comfortable with those rare cases that instant replay is not conclusive sticking with the ruling on the field. I know you will say things are open to subjectivity and misapplying the rule and 100 drunks in a room and blah, blah, blah. I am telling you that I am assuming that refs and the refs reviewing instant replays do not have any hidden agendas and/or biases and will make the best call they can and I am comfortable with that.
Robs, It seems as though you're for the consistency the rule creates, which is a good thing. The problem is the extent to which continuation of the play must occur. In this case, Johnson caught the ball, two feet hit the ground, he fell on his knee, landed on his butt, THEN...As he was getting up, he put the ball on the ground to regain his balance and pop back up on his feet. If he pops back up with the ball in his hands...TD, Bears lose, Robs runs into a corner and sucks his thumb all week. Instead, he left the ball on the ground and the rule came into play.
The ground didn't cause the ball to come loose in this case. They enforced the rule because they had to, which I'm fine with...But I think it's possible, perhaps with the help of replay, to distinguish between the ground causing the ball to come loose and when the ground doesn't impact the play.
I'm sure the refs were saying, "Oh crap. We have to take the TD away because the rule says the receiver didn't come down with the ball."
I'm not saying there are hidden agendas either. But, the rule as it is is very simple and easy to interpret.
CJ did not hold on to the ball throughout the continuation of the play - it is plain and simple - no catch. All he had to do is hold on until the end and there would not have been an issue.
Consistent application of the rule would have eliminated the Lance Moore play which was clearly debatable either way. Some would say it was a catch, some would say otherwise. In that case, the ruling on the field was no catch and after looking at the replay the ruling on the field was overturned and it was incorrectly ruled a catch (the NFL has admitted it was a mistake).
You want to allow interpretation, but that is what caused confusion last year and that is why the NFL decided to make the rule black and white.
I don't see any way that this rule is going to change, nor do I see any reason to change the rule, because it will just lead to the confusion that existed last year and in prior years.
All that will happen under your scenario is that there will be more debate and confusion about why refs rule the way they do than otherwise.
And Deeps, I would say that instead of the refs trying to figure out whether the ground caused the fumble or not, or if it was a drop, or if it was a catch, they were probably very happy to just have a black and white rule so they could make the call.
It made the call easy and it made it consistent and fair.
Again, it is the correct call but it is a sucky rule. The majority of players and fans would say it is a catch.
Was watching NFL Network and Michael Irvin, Deion Sanders, Steve Mariucci, and Marshall Faulk all said the rule sucks and it should have been a catch. Mariucci commended the Lions coach and players for accepting the call and not saying it was the reason for the loss but he doesn't like the rule and he thought it should have been a catch. Irvin followed it up with the Lions players and coaches said the right thing in front of the cameras but you know they went out afterwards and were saying that that should have been a catch and they were robbed.
The Lance Moore play was ruled incorrectly based on the rule. However, I remember watching the replays and thinking it was a catch and that instant replay allowed for the correct call. I was not aware of the rule and under the rule it should not have been a catch in which case the NFL is correct in that it got the call wrong.
I know Boomer Esiason thought it wasn't a catch. Frankly, I think Boomer Esiason is a pretty poor analyst. I remember he and Deodorf getting into it pretty badly on MNF about a hit on a QB.
Fine, I get your point in that the rule makes it more black and white. However, it doesn't change the fact that I don't like the rule. It seems pretty obvious that the majority of people don't like the rule. In fact, outside of you, I don't know anyone that likes the rule. Again, you are entitled to your opinion and do not have to nor should you go along with the masses if you truly like the rule but I would rather have the scenario that I laid out earlier.
If the Redskins were in the Super Bowl and the game came down to a play like the one we are discussing, I think I could live with the refs on the field in the replay booth deciding as opposed to possession, two feet, a knee, butt down but losing the ball as the receiver was trying to get up. That would be a much more bitter pill for me to swallow.
If we were playing outside with friends and a similar thing to CJ's catch (or non catch) happened during our game, I am pretty confident that everyone playing would say it was a catch. I understand that we don't play by the NFL rules but I'm just saying that CJ had full possession of that ball and came down properly and he caught that ball.
NO, he didn't come down with the ball which is why it wasn't a catch.
Did you see Forte's diving touchdown at the end? He dove, knocked the wind out of himself, but held on to the ball. It was a tougher catch because he had to adjust to the ball, but he didn't try to jump up right away and celebrate. CJ could have done the same but didn't and it cost his team.
People may not like the rule, but last year there were 4 similar plays including one in the Super Bowl. Moore and Sims-Walker's catches were called good and Murphy and Jennings catches were called no-good. If you see each of the plays it is completely unclear how the refs called those plays so differently.
If you don't make the rule black and white that is what you are left with. Then you will have people complaining about inconsistencies and you will have more cases of controversy. That is why the NFL's Competition Committee looked at the issue in the off-season and instructed refs to enforce the rule.
YES. He did come down with the ball. Possession, two feet down, butt down, knee down, lost it when he put the ball down with his hand. Everyone I asked has said catch. Many coaches, broadcasters, and players have said catch. By the letter of the rule, it is NOT a catch. EVERYONE understands that but outside of you, I have not heard a single person say that they liked that call.
I did see Forte's catch and I beg to differ that that was a more difficult catch but because you are a Bear fan, I expect you to say that Forte's is better.
I understand the other catches/non catches and again, I am telling you at least the Moore catch in the Super Bowl, I agreed with the eventual call. I pull out the Moore play because that is the only one that I saw live and all of the replays as they were taking place. Again, I (and I think the majority of football viewers) like that as opposed to the rule as it stands today. Go to instant replay and unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn a call, the call on the field stands. I am comfortable with that.
CJ had the ball in his hands with full possession, had two feet down, his butt down, a knee down, and the ground caused the ball to be jarred loose. That to me (and Del Rio, Dungy, Costas, Peter King, Lavar and Dukes, Chicago Tribune, Yahoo, Marshall Faulk, Deion Sanders, Mariucci, Irvin, judging by the reactions the Lions and Bears teams and fans, and everyone I have talked to (at least 10 people)) was a catch.
The rule says it wasn't a catch - the Lions lost - it wasn't a catch.
He should have known the rule - he either didn't or forgot it. He let the ball go.
Forte made a tough catch - he turned his body landed on his back/butt and held on to the ball through the end of the play. CJ should have done it.
You have never addressed the issue of how to handle the inconsistency in calls if you don't have the black and white rule. You keep saying it sucks, but you just don't have a solution. Saying it should be left up to the ref is exactly why the rule has been made black and white - there was controversy last year.
I know what the rule says and I have said plenty of times in this string that according to the rule, it is not a catch.
I, and pretty much everyone else, is saying that the rules sucks.
If you paid attention to the actual words that I write, you would have seen how I would like to address those types of plays. For your benefit, I will copy and paste again so you don't have to search.
"Regarding changing it, I say possession plus two feet in and/or one knee in is a catch. I am comfortable with instant replay determining that outcome. I am also comfortable with those rare cases that instant replay is not conclusive sticking with the ruling on the field. I know you will say things are open to subjectivity and misapplying the rule and 100 drunks in a room and blah, blah, blah. I am telling you that I am assuming that refs and the refs reviewing instant replays do not have any hidden agendas and/or biases and will make the best call they can and I am comfortable with that."
Your right, I say your way leaves open the door for subjectivity. Mine doesn't which makes it fair for everyone.
I just watched the NFL replay of the game and just watched the play. Thom Brennaman and Brian Billick did the game and after the call came out they said that the refs talked specifically about the rule right before the game. The NFL went to great lengths this off-season to explain the rule to everyone.
You don't like the rule - fine, I get it - but it is the rule and it is not an unknown rule. The inconsistency from last year is the reason for the new focus on properly applying the rule. I seriously doubt there is going to be any change because it is the most fair way to look at such plays. We'll see.
The way the rule is being implemented now is consistent for everyone.
Sure, I listened to Brennamen and Billick as well and they had Pereira on during the broadcast as well. They were doing their best to explain the rule to the viewing public so that at least we could understand why it was being called an incompletion. However, I got the sense from both Brennamen and Billick that they believed that it was a catch.
I don't like the rule and it appears that no one except for you and Bears fans this week like the rule.
I'll correct you every time you make a grammar/spelling mistake, now that I realize that you are such a stickler.
Whether I like the rule or not is immaterial. The alternative is that we have inconsistency in calls. I would much prefer the simplicity of the rule, to the arbitrariness of ref's interpretations.
The rule is simple, clear, and thus fair the way it is.
I don't love the rule, but it is better than the alternative in terms of bringing consistency (and ultimately fairness) to the game, because it sets a standard for everyone that is easy to understand and to officiate.
I've said the reason it is a good rule - the Lions accepted it, CJ accepted it. If it is a bad rule, the NFL will re-look at it in the off-season. I'm sure they won't change it because it is in place because of past confusion.
It doesn't matter whether I like the rule, or 100 drunks in a bar hate the rule, or if you hate the rule - THAT IS IRRELEVANT!!!
Like I have said upteen times - the alternative creates more controversy, which is why the way it is enforced now makes sense.
If you eliminate the rule and leave it to refs to decide, you will have inconsistent rulings which will cause more confusion and more controversy.
It is easy to just throw up your hands and throw a tantrum and say, "THE RULE SUCKS!" But we live in real world and have to have real solutions. Sometimes you have to take the best you can get.
If they were to eliminate the rule and there was a controversial call that could go either way, you would say, "WHAT A TERRIBLE CALL - THEY NEED A RULE."
If you don't have the rule you will have more controversy and then people will complain the other way.
Here is an answer to your question. The NFL competition committee - which is in charge of understanding these issues - looked at it and explicitly endorsed the rule. Obviously the 8 experts who best understand the issue believed in the rule. They are the ones who matter.
29 comments:
It should be a catch for the sole reason that it would have beaten the Bears and Robs would have spent the rest of the week in football agony.
The rule sucks, but it is what it is. The player must complete the play and the ground cannot force the ball out of his hands when he comes down. We've seen it plenty of times before. This falls in the same category of plays even though it was clear that Johnson just left the ball on the ground after thinking he had scored.
Largely agree. The rule is what it is and under said rule, it is not a catch but to me possession + two feet + one knee = catch.
Interesting because the fans thought it was a TD by their reaction (silence), the line judge who was less than 5 yards away from the play called it a TD, no Bear player ran over to the ref and/or vehemently protested the call. I think most everyone thought this was a TD.
Again, the rule states otherwise but don't like the rule/call.
All CJ had to do was hold the ball until he had hit the ground. He decided to hold it in one hand (unnecessarily) and as he hit the ground it popped out.
I disagree with you Deepie, I don't think he "just left the ball on the ground after thinking he had scored." He lost it in the process of his continuation.
I've posted about this on my blog, and JKSD and I have spoken at length. Everyone agrees that the play was called correctly according to the rule.
If people want to change the rule, what would you change the rule to? The way it is now, it eliminates unnecessary interpretation by refs.
I'm sure this is a direct response to the confusion about the plays last year by Louis Murphy, Greg Jennings, Mike Sims-Walker, and in the Super Bowl by Lance Moore.
The problem was that different refs called the same situation differently in the above cases. Now we have consistency - that is what the rules are there for.
One other thing - the play was ruled incomplete on the field before it was reviewed (which was the correct call).
Lovie Smith knew the play was incomplete right from the get go. Greg Jennings had the exact same thing happen to him last year against the Bears. He was familiar with the rule because the NFL clarified it to teams during training camps and he had experience with it last year.
Lovie said he didn't see any reason to review it in the first place because it was so clear.
Heck, the announcers agree with the call right away. It was pretty clear cut, so I don't know why JKSD says he doesn't like the "call".
You may not like the rule, but what would you rather have?
We all agree that it was the correct call based on the rule. No one is disputing that. Although I think most everyone thought it was a TD when the play happened including the announcers, the fans, the Lions, the Bears, etc.
The line judge who was closest to the play immediately called it a touchdown. The ref overruled it because he knew the rule.
Again, no one is disputing the rule. It was the correct call but as Deepie (and so many others) said, the rule "sucks."
From Yahoo Sports, "Don't blame the refs for this one. They made the correct decision as dictated by the rule book. The fault lies with the rule itself. Why do there have to be so many conditions to a catch? Toddlers know when a ball is caught and when it isn't. Aside from getting two feet in, what more does the NFL want people to do? Should Calvin Johnson have brought the ball with him to the sideline? Should he hold it for the flight home? Take it to dinner? When does the process of a catch end?"
Don't get so salty Robs.
Actually, Deepie you are wrong. Rob is actually in football agony. All of his posts are an attempt to deflect his true emotions. Knowing this, I feel confident posting Rob's true sentiments: "OMG, the Bears really suck!"
If you want a change what change do you want?
The rule is clear as it is.
Correct. The rule is clear. No one is disputing that. We are all saying that the rule sucks.
Was listening to Lavar and Dukes on the way home and they vehemently agreed that the rule is stupid and it was a catch. Most everyone agrees that the rule sucks and that it should have been a catch (Dungy, Costas, Peter King, Yahoo, Chicago Tribune, etc.). Read some where yesterday where some one was saying what are they going to expect next, three legs in bounds?
In fact, outside of you, I don't believe that I have read/heard anyone else liking that rule. I am sure Bears fans love the rule this week but if the tables had been turned, they would have hated it. I am taking you for your word when you say that you are being objective but you are the only person I know that likes the rule. That's fine if you honestly believe it. I don't agree and am confident most everyone wouldn't agree.
I am fairly confident that if you showed 10 football fans that play that had not seen it or heard anything of that play, at least 9 of them would say catch.
Regarding changing it, I say possession plus two feet in and/or one knee in is a catch. I am comfortable with instant replay determining that outcome. I am also comfortable with those rare cases that instant replay is not conclusive sticking with the ruling on the field. I know you will say things are open to subjectivity and misapplying the rule and 100 drunks in a room and blah, blah, blah. I am telling you that I am assuming that refs and the refs reviewing instant replays do not have any hidden agendas and/or biases and will make the best call they can and I am comfortable with that.
Robs,
It seems as though you're for the consistency the rule creates, which is a good thing. The problem is the extent to which continuation of the play must occur. In this case, Johnson caught the ball, two feet hit the ground, he fell on his knee, landed on his butt, THEN...As he was getting up, he put the ball on the ground to regain his balance and pop back up on his feet. If he pops back up with the ball in his hands...TD, Bears lose, Robs runs into a corner and sucks his thumb all week. Instead, he left the ball on the ground and the rule came into play.
The ground didn't cause the ball to come loose in this case. They enforced the rule because they had to, which I'm fine with...But I think it's possible, perhaps with the help of replay, to distinguish between the ground causing the ball to come loose and when the ground doesn't impact the play.
I'm sure the refs were saying, "Oh crap. We have to take the TD away because the rule says the receiver didn't come down with the ball."
I'm not saying there are hidden agendas either. But, the rule as it is is very simple and easy to interpret.
CJ did not hold on to the ball throughout the continuation of the play - it is plain and simple - no catch. All he had to do is hold on until the end and there would not have been an issue.
Consistent application of the rule would have eliminated the Lance Moore play which was clearly debatable either way. Some would say it was a catch, some would say otherwise. In that case, the ruling on the field was no catch and after looking at the replay the ruling on the field was overturned and it was incorrectly ruled a catch (the NFL has admitted it was a mistake).
You want to allow interpretation, but that is what caused confusion last year and that is why the NFL decided to make the rule black and white.
I don't see any way that this rule is going to change, nor do I see any reason to change the rule, because it will just lead to the confusion that existed last year and in prior years.
All that will happen under your scenario is that there will be more debate and confusion about why refs rule the way they do than otherwise.
And Deeps, I would say that instead of the refs trying to figure out whether the ground caused the fumble or not, or if it was a drop, or if it was a catch, they were probably very happy to just have a black and white rule so they could make the call.
It made the call easy and it made it consistent and fair.
Again, it is the correct call but it is a sucky rule. The majority of players and fans would say it is a catch.
Was watching NFL Network and Michael Irvin, Deion Sanders, Steve Mariucci, and Marshall Faulk all said the rule sucks and it should have been a catch. Mariucci commended the Lions coach and players for accepting the call and not saying it was the reason for the loss but he doesn't like the rule and he thought it should have been a catch. Irvin followed it up with the Lions players and coaches said the right thing in front of the cameras but you know they went out afterwards and were saying that that should have been a catch and they were robbed.
The Lance Moore play was ruled incorrectly based on the rule. However, I remember watching the replays and thinking it was a catch and that instant replay allowed for the correct call. I was not aware of the rule and under the rule it should not have been a catch in which case the NFL is correct in that it got the call wrong.
I know Boomer Esiason thought it wasn't a catch. Frankly, I think Boomer Esiason is a pretty poor analyst. I remember he and Deodorf getting into it pretty badly on MNF about a hit on a QB.
Fine, I get your point in that the rule makes it more black and white. However, it doesn't change the fact that I don't like the rule. It seems pretty obvious that the majority of people don't like the rule. In fact, outside of you, I don't know anyone that likes the rule. Again, you are entitled to your opinion and do not have to nor should you go along with the masses if you truly like the rule but I would rather have the scenario that I laid out earlier.
If the Redskins were in the Super Bowl and the game came down to a play like the one we are discussing, I think I could live with the refs on the field in the replay booth deciding as opposed to possession, two feet, a knee, butt down but losing the ball as the receiver was trying to get up. That would be a much more bitter pill for me to swallow.
If we were playing outside with friends and a similar thing to CJ's catch (or non catch) happened during our game, I am pretty confident that everyone playing would say it was a catch. I understand that we don't play by the NFL rules but I'm just saying that CJ had full possession of that ball and came down properly and he caught that ball.
The rule sucks.
NO, he didn't come down with the ball which is why it wasn't a catch.
Did you see Forte's diving touchdown at the end? He dove, knocked the wind out of himself, but held on to the ball. It was a tougher catch because he had to adjust to the ball, but he didn't try to jump up right away and celebrate. CJ could have done the same but didn't and it cost his team.
People may not like the rule, but last year there were 4 similar plays including one in the Super Bowl. Moore and Sims-Walker's catches were called good and Murphy and Jennings catches were called no-good. If you see each of the plays it is completely unclear how the refs called those plays so differently.
If you don't make the rule black and white that is what you are left with. Then you will have people complaining about inconsistencies and you will have more cases of controversy. That is why the NFL's Competition Committee looked at the issue in the off-season and instructed refs to enforce the rule.
YES. He did come down with the ball. Possession, two feet down, butt down, knee down, lost it when he put the ball down with his hand. Everyone I asked has said catch. Many coaches, broadcasters, and players have said catch. By the letter of the rule, it is NOT a catch. EVERYONE understands that but outside of you, I have not heard a single person say that they liked that call.
I did see Forte's catch and I beg to differ that that was a more difficult catch but because you are a Bear fan, I expect you to say that Forte's is better.
I understand the other catches/non catches and again, I am telling you at least the Moore catch in the Super Bowl, I agreed with the eventual call. I pull out the Moore play because that is the only one that I saw live and all of the replays as they were taking place. Again, I (and I think the majority of football viewers) like that as opposed to the rule as it stands today. Go to instant replay and unless there is conclusive evidence to overturn a call, the call on the field stands. I am comfortable with that.
CJ had the ball in his hands with full possession, had two feet down, his butt down, a knee down, and the ground caused the ball to be jarred loose. That to me (and Del Rio, Dungy, Costas, Peter King, Lavar and Dukes, Chicago Tribune, Yahoo, Marshall Faulk, Deion Sanders, Mariucci, Irvin, judging by the reactions the Lions and Bears teams and fans, and everyone I have talked to (at least 10 people)) was a catch.
The rule sucks!
The rule says it wasn't a catch - the Lions lost - it wasn't a catch.
He should have known the rule - he either didn't or forgot it. He let the ball go.
Forte made a tough catch - he turned his body landed on his back/butt and held on to the ball through the end of the play. CJ should have done it.
You have never addressed the issue of how to handle the inconsistency in calls if you don't have the black and white rule. You keep saying it sucks, but you just don't have a solution. Saying it should be left up to the ref is exactly why the rule has been made black and white - there was controversy last year.
I know what the rule says and I have said plenty of times in this string that according to the rule, it is not a catch.
I, and pretty much everyone else, is saying that the rules sucks.
If you paid attention to the actual words that I write, you would have seen how I would like to address those types of plays. For your benefit, I will copy and paste again so you don't have to search.
"Regarding changing it, I say possession plus two feet in and/or one knee in is a catch. I am comfortable with instant replay determining that outcome. I am also comfortable with those rare cases that instant replay is not conclusive sticking with the ruling on the field. I know you will say things are open to subjectivity and misapplying the rule and 100 drunks in a room and blah, blah, blah. I am telling you that I am assuming that refs and the refs reviewing instant replays do not have any hidden agendas and/or biases and will make the best call they can and I am comfortable with that."
Questions? Concerns?
Your right, I say your way leaves open the door for subjectivity. Mine doesn't which makes it fair for everyone.
I just watched the NFL replay of the game and just watched the play. Thom Brennaman and Brian Billick did the game and after the call came out they said that the refs talked specifically about the rule right before the game. The NFL went to great lengths this off-season to explain the rule to everyone.
You don't like the rule - fine, I get it - but it is the rule and it is not an unknown rule. The inconsistency from last year is the reason for the new focus on properly applying the rule. I seriously doubt there is going to be any change because it is the most fair way to look at such plays. We'll see.
The way the rule is being implemented now is consistent for everyone.
First, it is "you're" right and not "your" right.
Sure, I listened to Brennamen and Billick as well and they had Pereira on during the broadcast as well. They were doing their best to explain the rule to the viewing public so that at least we could understand why it was being called an incompletion. However, I got the sense from both Brennamen and Billick that they believed that it was a catch.
I don't like the rule and it appears that no one except for you and Bears fans this week like the rule.
I'll correct you every time you make a grammar/spelling mistake, now that I realize that you are such a stickler.
Whether I like the rule or not is immaterial. The alternative is that we have inconsistency in calls. I would much prefer the simplicity of the rule, to the arbitrariness of ref's interpretations.
The rule is simple, clear, and thus fair the way it is.
As a first example of the grammar mistakes you make:
You should have written "Bears' fans" not "Bears fans" in your last post.
You should have written "the ref's" or "refs" in your second to the last post.
Okay, lets please not start checking each otherz gramar az I vil git vewy anoid.
Fine, I get it. You love the rule. Everyone else thinks it sucks.
HOORAY!!!
I don't love the rule, but it is better than the alternative in terms of bringing consistency (and ultimately fairness) to the game, because it sets a standard for everyone that is easy to understand and to officiate.
You are by far in the minority. Just curious, do you know anyone else that liked that call and likes the rule?
I can't seem to find anyone that liked that call.
I've said the reason it is a good rule - the Lions accepted it, CJ accepted it. If it is a bad rule, the NFL will re-look at it in the off-season. I'm sure they won't change it because it is in place because of past confusion.
It doesn't matter whether I like the rule, or 100 drunks in a bar hate the rule, or if you hate the rule - THAT IS IRRELEVANT!!!
Like I have said upteen times - the alternative creates more controversy, which is why the way it is enforced now makes sense.
If you eliminate the rule and leave it to refs to decide, you will have inconsistent rulings which will cause more confusion and more controversy.
It is easy to just throw up your hands and throw a tantrum and say, "THE RULE SUCKS!" But we live in real world and have to have real solutions. Sometimes you have to take the best you can get.
If they were to eliminate the rule and there was a controversial call that could go either way, you would say, "WHAT A TERRIBLE CALL - THEY NEED A RULE."
Geez, dude. Take it easy. I asked you a simple question and you blow up.
Funny thing is that you never answered the question.
Could you answer the question please?
It doesn't matter whether people agree or not.
If you don't have the rule you will have more controversy and then people will complain the other way.
Here is an answer to your question. The NFL competition committee - which is in charge of understanding these issues - looked at it and explicitly endorsed the rule. Obviously the 8 experts who best understand the issue believed in the rule. They are the ones who matter.
The question was, "do you know anyone else that liked that call and likes the rule?"
It's simple. It's a yes or no answer.
Can you answer it please?
I did - the 8 (I think) members of the Competition Committee who unanimously agreed to stress the rule this year.
Post a Comment