And that's why I quit watching the NFL. (1 Viewer)

SaintsDrunkard

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Approved Blogger
Joined
Jul 30, 1999
Messages
2,350
Reaction score
781
Age
51
Offline
How is that not a catch???? Hope everyone had a fun year and our Saints Faithful have a great 2017...See you next season!
 
There is no rhyme nor reason to what is a catch. It's totally arbitrary and I'm sick of having to too.
 
Ive always maintained that the ambiguity with catches started with the whole "catch the ball through the ground"/complete the process/football move crap.

If you just got rid of that and made two feet = a catch like it used to, everything will be so much clearer.

It's simple, possession of the football + two feet on the ground for anything more than a half second = automatic catch.
 
are rules that hard to understand?

It's clear as day. You must maintain control TO THE GROUND. The ball was coming loose as he went to the ground.

Hate on the rule all you want, but by rule that was clearly a no TD.
 
are rules that hard to understand?

It's clear as day. You must maintain control TO THE GROUND. The ball was coming loose as he went to the ground.

Hate on the rule all you want, but by rule that was clearly a no TD.
If he was in the field of play, that's a catch. He maintained possession, even when the ball shifted it was still pressed firmly against him. The point is, to every fan watching that play, they think it's a catch because no time did he drop the ball or really loose control of it. Seriously, the rule needs to change.
 
I agree, this is the kind of **** that makes it hard to keep watching.

The rule is the rule, but in this case it's almost bewildering why it's the rule. If Fleener had caught the ball against his wrist and held it there it would be a catch. But because it slipped from the first location to the wrist, now it's the equivalent of a drop? Simply doesn't correspond to any common sense understanding of what a catch should be. Of course this is far from the first time we've seen something like that.
 
I agree, this is the kind of **** that makes it hard to keep watching.

The rule is the rule, but in this case it's almost bewildering why it's the rule. If Fleener had caught the ball against his wrist and held it there it would be a catch. But because it slipped from the first location to the wrist, now it's the equivalent of a drop? Simply doesn't correspond to any common sense understanding of what a catch should be. Of course this is far from the first time we've seen something like that.

The thing is, all year we hear that all a guy has to do is break the plane of goalline with possession. We've seen it on TD's where a player reaches over the GL and the ball gets knocked out but it's a TD rather than a fumble because he breaks the plane. Following that logic Fleener caught the ball, had possession with two feet in bounds in the endzone and it should be a TD. Now, as he fell out of bounds he let the ball slip to his wrist but he has already established possession in the endzone at that point for one, for another, the ball never hit the ground. For me that's catch and a TD. No idea how the refs saw it any differently but it's something that's been happening to us all season and I'm sick of it. I hope next year is better but I won't be holding my breath.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom