Maulers1973 117 Posted October 18, 2010 Ok, this is absurd. When is the NFL going to revise this stupid do a "football" move with the ball before it's a catch. It's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Last night Peyton Manning threw an interception. Well, it SHOULD have been an interception if the rules of the leauge weren't so jacked up. A Redskins DB jumped, caught the ball with both hands, cradled it to his body...................THEN..................he took 3 steps and fell down. He possessed the ball for at least 3 seconds(real time) and then the ball came out after hitting the ground. If a running back hits the ground and the ball comes out they say(the ground can't cause a fumble). Well, I don't think the Redskins guy was touched by a Colt in last night's play so that could have been ruled a fumble as the play was still alive. Maybe the rule should be the guy has to take 4 steps, or 5, or 6, maybe it should be that he has to go 10 yards. It's ridiculous and I am sick of it!!!!!!!!!!! Trapping the ball against the ground is not a catch, but all these other absurd rules are ruining the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmbryant09 1 Posted October 18, 2010 Ok, this is absurd. When is the NFL going to revise this stupid do a "football" move with the ball before it's a catch. It's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Last night Peyton Manning threw an interception. Well, it SHOULD have been an interception if the rules of the leauge weren't so jacked up. A Redskins DB jumped, caught the ball with both hands, cradled it to his body...................THEN..................he took 3 steps and fell down. He possessed the ball for at least 3 seconds(real time) and then the ball came out after hitting the ground. If a running back hits the ground and the ball comes out they say(the ground can't cause a fumble). Well, I don't think the Redskins guy was touched by a Colt in last night's play so that could have been ruled a fumble as the play was still alive. Maybe the rule should be the guy has to take 4 steps, or 5, or 6, maybe it should be that he has to go 10 yards. It's ridiculous and I am sick of it!!!!!!!!!!! Trapping the ball against the ground is not a catch, but all these other absurd rules are ruining the game. I agree with you - but it's really a simple rule, and a simple rule to enforce. If you go to the ground in the act of making/completing a catch (whether on your own merit or from a defender) - you must maintain possession throughout the entire process of hitting the ground. With that being said, it's an awful, awful, rule. These players aren't going to the ground to make a catch. In fact, in the Calvin Johnson case week 1, he actually went UP IN THE AIR to make the catch. Last night, I guess the refs were implying that the 2-3 steps taken by the DB were considered the beginning of him "going to the ground". I didn't think it was an awful call...more just a pathetic rule. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maulers1973 117 Posted October 18, 2010 I agree with you - but it's really a simple rule, and a simple rule to enforce. If you go to the ground in the act of making/completing a catch (whether on your own merit or from a defender) - you must maintain possession throughout the entire process of hitting the ground. With that being said, it's an awful, awful, rule. These players aren't going to the ground to make a catch. In fact, in the Calvin Johnson case week 1, he actually went UP IN THE AIR to make the catch. Last night, I guess the refs were implying that the 2-3 steps taken by the DB were considered the beginning of him "going to the ground". I didn't think it was an awful call...more just a pathetic rule. Yes, the Calvin Johnson play in week 1 is another glaring example of how STUPID the rule is. The "forced out" rule was stupid and they did away it. Hopefully, this gets corrected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BTL99 34 Posted October 18, 2010 That Redskins defender needs to learn how to catch, no problem with the rule. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted October 18, 2010 Once you wrap your head around the rule, it's a good one. It's the exact same rule that baseball uses, and you never see complaints about it. Colts should never have challenged. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted October 18, 2010 Actually, if you watched the replay closely, Collie's foot actually hits Rogers after he caught the ball. He would have been down by contact had they ruled it an interception. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BTL99 34 Posted October 18, 2010 Ok, this is absurd. When is the NFL going to revise this stupid do a "football" move with the ball before it's a catch. It's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Last night Peyton Manning threw an interception. Well, it SHOULD have been an interception if the rules of the leauge weren't so jacked up. A Redskins DB jumped, caught the ball with both hands, cradled it to his body...................THEN..................he took 3 steps and fell down. He possessed the ball for at least 3 seconds(real time) and then the ball came out after hitting the ground. If a running back hits the ground and the ball comes out they say(the ground can't cause a fumble). Well, I don't think the Redskins guy was touched by a Colt in last night's play so that could have been ruled a fumble as the play was still alive. Maybe the rule should be the guy has to take 4 steps, or 5, or 6, maybe it should be that he has to go 10 yards. It's ridiculous and I am sick of it!!!!!!!!!!! Trapping the ball against the ground is not a catch, but all these other absurd rules are ruining the game. so you played against manning this week and lost by 1 point? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chroniciguana 13 Posted October 18, 2010 he took 3 steps and fell down When I first saw the play live, I agreed with you. But on replay, the three steps he "took" were those of a guy simply trying to get his balance as he was falling backwards to the ground. Where he dropped the ball. He might have had some control of the ball, but he never had control of his legs. Ironically, had those three steps taken him out of bounds, I wager it would likely have been ruled an interception. But, as they say, it's pretty much ITOOTR. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Portis26 0 Posted October 18, 2010 his momentum took him 3 steps. He didn't take those steps on his own accord. How bout Carlos Rodgers actually catching a ball Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maulers1973 117 Posted October 18, 2010 So, to be clear, if a guy were off balance he could take 10 steps and when he collides with the ground............the ball comes out and it's not a catch. Gee, I wonder how often a guy is off balance in the NFL. Sorry, but when a guy posseses the ball with 2 hands for that long it should be a catch. The rule is ridiculous. If they made it retroactive would Rice still be the carreer leader in receptions? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kent 228 Posted October 18, 2010 Also, looked like the ground caused that fumble. Which means, no fumble, unless they changed that rule too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted October 18, 2010 Ok, this is absurd. When is the NFL going to revise this stupid do a "football" move with the ball before it's a catch. It's the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Last night Peyton Manning threw an interception. Well, it SHOULD have been an interception if the rules of the leauge weren't so jacked up. A Redskins DB jumped, caught the ball with both hands, cradled it to his body...................THEN..................he took 3 steps and fell down. He possessed the ball for at least 3 seconds(real time) and then the ball came out after hitting the ground. If a running back hits the ground and the ball comes out they say(the ground can't cause a fumble). Well, I don't think the Redskins guy was touched by a Colt in last night's play so that could have been ruled a fumble as the play was still alive. Maybe the rule should be the guy has to take 4 steps, or 5, or 6, maybe it should be that he has to go 10 yards. It's ridiculous and I am sick of it!!!!!!!!!!! Trapping the ball against the ground is not a catch, but all these other absurd rules are ruining the game. He was touched by the reciever so it would have been ruled "the ground cannot cause a fumble". That is the ru;e I hate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted October 18, 2010 So, to be clear, if a guy were off balance he could take 10 steps and when he collides with the ground............the ball comes out and it's not a catch. Gee, I wonder how often a guy is off balance in the NFL. Sorry, but when a guy posseses the ball with 2 hands for that long it should be a catch. The rule is ridiculous. If they made it retroactive would Rice still be the carreer leader in receptions? How long do you think it was? .75 seconds? Maybe the rule should have a time limit. I get your point but you are using the wrong play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maulers1973 117 Posted October 18, 2010 How long do you think it was? .75 seconds? Maybe the rule should have a time limit. I get your point but you are using the wrong play. Well, I didn't use a stop watch, but when they showed it again in real-time I counted by 1000 and nearly got to 3. Based on the rule, the call was correct. I just think that rule is stupid. They could modify it, by saying you have to get 2 feet down or take 2 steps. If you are falling and your feet don't hit the ground before something else does, then the "stupid rule language" would come into play. It's a little bit more complex, but catches like that one and the Calvin TD catch against the Bears should be a catch per the rules. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
