Week 15 ATL

[Kerb Hohl]

I get it because it's the precedent that they've used for a while but the issue is the NFL still has no idea what a catch is. It's a stupid rule. If that wasn't a catch then the Geronimo Allison catch/fumble wasn't either. But again, the NFL just makes **** up over what a catch is depending on where you are on the field.

You can make the argument that Geronimo gathered the ball into his body, securing control, while Dez/James did not.

Except that would make this "catch" an incomplete pass.

Watch on YouTube

So the rules for a catch are entirely different when you're falling down as opposed to standing up straight. And the widely held rule of the ball crossing the plain making it an instant touchdown actually isn't a rule anymore because you have to hit the ground, make sure the ball stays perfectly still, and you have to cradle it against your body while laying on the ground for a solid 2-3 seconds for them to say you "possessed it".

It's not that the rules don't make sense, it's that they're completely different depending on what the situation is, where you are on the field, what time of day it is, etc. I can take bad calls but inconsistency is way worse when it comes to officiating. The NFL has no idea what a catch is, and I still can't believe that they haven't gone to the rules committee and figured this out yet.

It's an instant touchdown when you cross the goalline when you officially have possession of the ball.

How can I score a touchdown if, by definition of the rule, I do not have possession of the football?

I don't know how you have a clear "going to the ground" criteria. Sure, ones like Dez and maybe James' play seem that it would be more "fair" to warrant a catch. So you loosen those restrictions a bit. What if I'm diving and I catch the ball a foot off the ground, my knees land on the ground, but the ball pops out as I hit the ground? Catch, right? In theory I had the ball and I was down. But it's pretty clear that there will be some very flimsy "catches" as I just defined in the last sentence.

[Kerb Hohl]

Except that would make this "catch" an incomplete pass.

Watch on YouTube

No. It would make it a catch, because Jordy secured control. Just like Geronimo.

You can argue that Geronimo caught and took 1.5 steps up the field. Jordy held the ball between his hands for not even a fraction of a second before it was knocked out. This was called an incomplete pass, should have been a TD that sent the Ravens to the SB by the NFL's contradictory logic:

Watch on YouTube

His left foot is off the ground by the time the ball touches him. It's very close but that was the ruling. Therefore, he only has 1 foot down. Not a catch.

[humanrefutation]

Except that would make this "catch" an incomplete pass.

Watch on YouTube

No. It would make it a catch, because Jordy secured control. Just like Geronimo.

You can argue that Geronimo caught and took 1.5 steps up the field. Jordy held the ball between his hands for not even a fraction of a second before it was knocked out. This was called an incomplete pass, should have been a TD that sent the Ravens to the SB by the NFL's contradictory logic:

Watch on YouTube

I don't think you even believe yourself here. Jordy clearly had possession, two-feet down, spinning away. There is no doubt. Lee Evans did not have two feet down, and thus, he did not establish possession.

[Ron Swanson]

I'm not sure how you guys are seeing any sort of consistency between what deems a catch. What's an incomplete pass in the field of play is often deemed possession in the end zone. If you're standing up with two feet down and the ball pops out, it's possession, but if you're falling down with both legs in play and it pops out, it's not possession. We're seeing these instances almost every week and the league still shows no consistency in their logic.

[Kerb Hohl]

I'm not sure how you guys are seeing any sort of consistency between what deems a catch. What's an incomplete pass in the field of play is often deemed possession in the end zone. If you're standing up with two feet down and the ball pops out, it's possession, but if you're falling down with both legs in play and it pops out, it's not possession. We're seeing these instances almost every week and the league still shows no consistency in their logic.

I will agree with you in a shred of inconsistency in judgment calls. I do think that Nelson's was shaky. Sure, he possesses it, but any "football move" was very minor after it. There are some where it's up to the ref to decide whether the guy completed the catch and then started running/fell or whether he was going to the ground while catching it. I'm not sure you can really standardize such a rule.

That said, the rule is pretty clear and we'd be debating on the judgment of how long a guy possessed it for no matter the rule.

I don't think it has anything to do with "in the endzone vs. not in the endzone." It's a pretty clear flow chart:

1. Does the player have possession?
a. Yes - go to step 2
b. No - repeat step 1 until decision is made
2. Did he cross the goalline?

Like I said, you are going to have debate about any "going to the ground" rule. Where do you think the "going to the ground" rule should start? Is the rule that you have to have 2 feet or a butt/knee down? Then I ask how you define the play that I catch the ball a foot off the ground, land on my knees, and it pops out. You'd be flipping out about all of the "catches" where a guy possesses the ball for .3 seconds.

[RubberSoul]

Onto 2018 with that Freeman TD. See you next year Aaron.

[raysbookclub]

Yep, no reason to play a not-fully healed Rodgers now that they're eliminated. Sit Adams too.

A 7-9 record got picks #10-12 last year. Last time the Packers had a losing record (6-10 the year after the Giants NFCC loss) we fired our defensive coaches.