Recent content by ragnarok628

pretty much just not a good team right now. Not sure if there's even a path to being a good team. We could have a good defense next year when players get healthy, but offensively I don't see it ever being better than average with what we're working with now. 

So, the Kansas City Chiefs: can we do it, gang? Seems plausible

nice graphic. so worst case scenario, it'd come down to a coin flip? TAILS NEVER FAILS

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...

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...

< 2 pages is not that many posts tbh, and like half of them are me. A handful of guys who don't want to understand something not understanding that thing is not evidence for anything, much less the need to overhaul the NFL catch rules.

I accept that you disagree with my bolded statements, but that doesn't make them incorrect. Lets start with #1. I state that without a time element, there is no distinction between 'secured' and 'touched and then dropped'. I don't really think that is disputable, it is a fact. So please explain...

a third step isn't a requirement in the rules AFAIK to establish oneself as a runner. I don't think I've heard anyone from the NFL say that it is, although i have heard it used as evidence confirming that the player had established himself as a runner. Likely taking the third step is one of a...

Well, you're more or less correct. I don't have the rules in front of me and my understanding of them is largely based on watching football and having heard the (many) explanations from the NFL/commentators on the catches. From this I feel like I understand the principles they use to guide the...

I thought Greg Russell did a more than adequate job pointing out flaws in your approach, so I didn't chime in. My main issue though is defining what you mean by 'secured'. There must be some kind of time element otherwise there is no distinction between 'secured' and 'touched and then dropped'...

The thing is, people *want* it to be simple, and it's really easy to convince yourself of something you want to believe. So it's not at all surprising that most people would disagree with the position that the complicated catch rules are appropriate. However those 80% don't have a plan to deal...

Not sure i agree. The two examples in the OP are actually a great example of how the rule *was* consistently called. In the ODB v. Tate situation I see that the rules were consistently and correctly applied to the different situations. The rules are actually pretty good, but they sometimes...

I'm not so bold as to predict what the fans and players would prefer, but I guarantee you that coaches, gms, owners would absolutely hate for random dropped passes to turn into fumbles under your proposed rules. They hate turnovers way more than they hate arguably controversial non-catches.

that is not a spot i'd want to be in

I disagree that it's as simple as you claim. You're coming at it from the perspective that 'everyone agrees' on a given play whether it was a catch or not. It's simply not the case that every catch is either obviously a catch or obviously not a catch. Therefore you have to have a legalistic...