Who sees a distinct difference between these two catches? (1 Viewer)

[T J]

OBJ was not a TD under any circumstance. Tate a little closer. Eifert, Johnson, Bryant all catches IMO.

I really think they need to not legislate what is and at isn't but allow a common sense judgement ruling to be the governing mechanism.

 

[KellysHeroes]

Try explaining it to my bosses at work, all Pats fan. "there wasn't a football move", hmmmm he was in the endzone.

 

[JIslander]

Try explaining it to my bosses at work, all Pats fan. "there wasn't a football move", hmmmm he was in the endzone.

They have to -- see Lee Evan's "non-catch" putting them in SB. Actually, I'd have to see that one again --but would seem to recall he had that a little less time than OBJ before being swatted out --

 

[ragnarok628]

Again, my problem is not with a rule in general. I too think it is complex and is subjective. My problem is with the inconsistency in the calls. You have to acknowledge the fallacy in Blandino's argument that Tate had become a runner because the ball was coming out when he was about to take his third step, yet turn around to say that Fells, who already had taken three steps, had not become a runner.

Again, with Fells it seems to me from viewing the replay and from what Blandino said, this call was different from the Tate call because it wasn't clear that Fells was actually controlling that ball for the whole 3 steps. If the video had confirmed that he definitely had the ball it would have been ruled a catch and fumble I believe. But since the video couldn't confirm, they let the incomplete call stand. I don't think you can blame this one on the complicated rules, it's just a matter of how good a view you can get into what actually happened. There will always be some degree of inconsistency under any rules. There would be a lot more inconsistency if all you have to go on is "two feet down and controlling the ball (for some unspecified period)"

 

[ragnarok628]

You are overcomplicating it. Refs must already judge when a ball is secured, and the rules do not specifically define a time element for that. My proposed approach does not change that judgment.

The rules provide the guidelines for determining if the process of catching the ball was completed or not. There is a time element specified, which is relative to the events on the field: the receiver has to control the ball long enough to become a runner. you're proposing to call it a catch as soon as ball is secured and 2 feet/1body part are down but are providing no basis for determining at what point the ball is secured, which makes it a pure judgement call. recipe for chaos IMO.

 

[JIslander]

You are overcomplicating it. Refs must already judge when a ball is secured, and the rules do not specifically define a time element for that. My proposed approach does not change that judgment.

The rules provide the guidelines for determining if the process of catching the ball was completed or not. There is a time element specified, which is relative to the events on the field: the receiver has to control the ball long enough to become a runner. you're proposing to call it a catch as soon as ball is secured and 2 feet/1body part are down but are providing no basis for determining at what point the ball is secured, which makes it a pure judgement call. recipe for chaos IMO.

I have not looked at the rules, but if you are saying that the specified time element = "the receiver has to control the ball long enough to be a runner" and not something like 0.6578 seconds --then its still a judgement call and WAY more complicated.

 

[Tau837]

You are overcomplicating it. Refs must already judge when a ball is secured, and the rules do not specifically define a time element for that. My proposed approach does not change that judgment.

The rules provide the guidelines for determining if the process of catching the ball was completed or not. There is a time element specified, which is relative to the events on the field: the receiver has to control the ball long enough to become a runner. you're proposing to call it a catch as soon as ball is secured and 2 feet/1body part are down but are providing no basis for determining at what point the ball is secured, which makes it a pure judgement call. recipe for chaos IMO.

I have not looked at the rules, but if you are saying that the specified time element = "the receiver has to control the ball long enough to be a runner" and not something like 0.6578 seconds --then its still a judgement call and WAY more complicated.

Exactly.

 

[monk]

The distinct difference is Tate was playing the Bears ...ODB was playing the Pats.

 

[CalBear]

OBJ was not a TD under any circumstance. Tate a little closer. Eifert, Johnson, Bryant all catches IMO.

I really think they need to not legislate what is and at isn't but allow a common sense judgement ruling to be the governing mechanism.

As you can see from this thread, there's no such thing as a "common sense judgement." People see it differently.