Super Bowl LII Thread

The ball moved a bit on Clement's TD but I feel like they got it right that's how it should be called. He still maintained control. Problem is we've seen too many plays like that get overturned. Stop with this idea every catch needs to be pristine.

With Ertz he was 110% a runner when he dove. I don't know what the confusion was all about.

Yeah I'm not even sure the rule itself needs to change that much.
They just need to be consistent in the way they apply the rule, and don't overturn the call on the field unless you really have something clear.
I like the stand on the Clement's TD.

On the Ertz TD, announcers made fools of themselves, they got confused with the rule that a receiver CATCHING THE BALL GOING TO THE GROUND must maintain control of the ball all the way through.
But Ertz didn't caught the ball going to the ground, he caught the ball, took several steps, and THEN went to the ground.
That is the difference between this and the Jesse James play which was a good overturn with the rule as it's written now. Maybe there's something that needs to change there.

The NFL needs to go back to the rule the way it was before, stop with this shit that the ball has to survive the ground rule or that the receiver has to make a football move. It leaves too much to the interpretation of the ref and the replay.
If a player catches the ball in the field of play and gets two feet or equivalent down in the field of play, it is a reception. If he loses it when he hits the ground and no defender is touching him, it is a free live ball = fumble.
If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands before he makes a so called football move, that is also a fumble. Not an incompletion.
The Jessie James TD should have been TD by a rule that has existed in football since football was first created. Jessie caught the ball and his left foot and right knee touch the ground while he possessed the ball. It was a catch right there.
It wasn't until after he stretched the ball over the goal line that he bobbled it.
The play should have ended when he stretched and broke the plane of the end zone, regardless that he bobbled it after and repossessed it.

Same thing when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and has two feet down on the ground, the play is over right there. Ref blows the whistle The play is over! Stop with it must survive the ground.

The ball moved a bit on Clement's TD but I feel like they got it right that's how it should be called. He still maintained control. Problem is we've seen too many plays like that get overturned. Stop with this idea every catch needs to be pristine.

With Ertz he was 110% a runner when he dove. I don't know what the confusion was all about.
Remember the days when "the ground can not cause a fumble" it was that fucking simple.

The NFL needs to go back to the rule the way it was before, stop with this shit that the ball has to survive the ground rule or that the receiver has to make a football move. It leaves too much to the interpretation of the ref and the replay.
If a player catches the ball in the field of play and gets two feet or equivalent down in the field of play, it is a reception. If he loses it when he hits the ground and no defender is touching him, it is a free live ball = fumble.
If a defender knocks the ball out of his hands before he makes a so called football move, that is also a fumble. Not an incompletion.
The Jessie James TD should have been TD by a rule that has existed in football since football was first created. Jessie caught the ball and his left foot and right knee touch the ground while he possessed the ball. It was a catch right there.
It wasn't until after he stretched the ball over the goal line that he bobbled it.
The play should have ended when he stretched and broke the plane of the end zone, regardless that he bobbled it after and repossessed it.

Same thing when a receiver catches a ball in the end zone and has two feet down on the ground, the play is over right there. Ref blows the whistle The play is over! Stop with it must survive the ground.

Maybe we can agree on your definition of the catch. Though I think it would need to be detailed just a little bit more.

Wouldn't it create quite a bump in fumbles called ?

Anyway I think the "control of the ball" part of the rule inherently introduces a time element. You control the ball because it doesn't move for a certain amount of time. Even if it's a fraction of a second. I don't see how the time element could be entirely dismissed.

I dont see how you can agree with the Jesse James catch but thought the Clement's ruling was ok? Ball was obviously moving,that should have been a no catch under the current rule the way they have called it this year,but the rule is so fucking confusing,no consistency whatsoever,so no wonder it's confusing to the announcers,and the Ertz catch I thought was a catch and run,but I can see why Collingsworth could be confused after he couldnt believe the Clements call stood.


For me (and again as the rule is written now, not saying the rule is perfect) it's simple:

-On the Jesse James overturned TD, he catches the ball going to the ground, and the ball moves when it hits the ground . On replay, it's conclusive. You can't argue that the ball did not move. You can argue it didn't move much, but it did move when it hit the ground, he lost control of the ball because of the ground. Conclusive evidence = overturn the call.

-On the Clement's TD, the ball never hits the ground, it's in an awkward position but you can argue about wether he had control or not. Remember you can control the ball with you butt and you ear, doesn't matter. So I agree you can say he lost control before setting 2 feet a second time, but it's not conclusive. Because you can also argue about it. So I like the fact the call stand.

I just wished they were more consistent on letting call stand when nothing's conclusive.

For me (and again as the rule is written now, not saying the rule is perfect) it's simple:



-On the Jesse James overturned TD, he catches the ball going to the ground, and the ball moves when it hits the ground . On replay, it's conclusive. You can't argue that the ball did not move. You can argue it didn't move much, but it did move when it hit the ground, he lost control of the ball because of the ground. Conclusive evidence = overturn the call.



-On the Clement's TD, the ball never hits the ground, it's in an awkward position but you can argue about wether he had control or not. Remember you can control the ball with you butt and you ear, doesn't matter. So I agree you can say he lost control before setting 2 feet a second time, but it's not conclusive. Because you can also argue about it. So I like the fact the call stand.



I just wished they were more consistent on letting call stand when nothing's conclusive.


Consistency is key, I also wish they would emphasis that replay is to overturn obvious bad calls, not to get everything perfect. Stop reviewing every score and turnover.

Consistency is key, I also wish they would emphasis that replay is to overturn obvious bad calls, not to get everything perfect. Stop reviewing every score and turnover.

Kevin Sheehan made a point, sort of joking but there's something to it: they should have 90 seconds max to review. Like if it takes 5minutes to review, it's not conclusive, don't overturn.

I'm not sure I agree with him. Cause sometimes it can take time to see a small thing and that'll still be conclusive.

But I'd like them to stress the fact replay should be here to support the work of officials, not to question every decision they make with ever improving technology.

Maybe we can agree on your definition of the catch. Though I think it would need to be detailed just a little bit more.

Wouldn't it create quite a bump in fumbles called ?

Anyway I think the "control of the ball" part of the rule inherently introduces a time element. You control the ball because it doesn't move for a certain amount of time. Even if it's a fraction of a second. I don't see how the time element could be entirely dismissed.

Yes it will create more fumbles, but is wrong with that? The NFL played with the two feet down or equivalent possession rule since the league was created and nobody complained about it or said there are too many fumbles. Turnovers are a exciting game changing play, nothing wrong with it. No need to protect the offenses any more then they already do. There was over 1000 yards of offense in the superbowl and only one punt. That is not balanced.
It wasn't until they changed the rules to promote more passing and give the offense more advantage and reason to throw the ball more, it has changed the game in a bad way.
Plus it is a contradiction when you can catch a ball on the edge of the sideline, as the receiver then steps put of bounds and only have two feet down and it is a catch. But in the field of play Jessie James gets his left foot and right knee down with possession of the ball and he is ruled incomplete.
You cannot have it both ways. the ball has to survive the ground rule has to go.

Consistency is key, I also wish they would emphasis that replay is to overturn obvious bad calls, not to get everything perfect. Stop reviewing every score and turnover.

I agree that replay should be to overturn obviously bad calls but this past season replay was used to get things perfect. Then suddenly in the Super Bowl it didn't have to be perfect anymore. So much for consistency.

Yes it will create more fumbles, but is wrong with that? The NFL played with the two feet down or equivalent possession rule since the league was created and nobody complained about it or said there are too many fumbles. Turnovers are a exciting game changing play, nothing wrong with it. No need to protect the offenses any more then they already do. There was over 1000 yards of offense in the superbowl and only one punt. That is not balanced.
It wasn't until they changed the rules to promote more passing and give the offense more advantage and reason to throw the ball more, it has changed the game in a bad way.
Plus it is a contradiction when you can catch a ball on the edge of the sideline, as the receiver then steps put of bounds and only have two feet down and it is a catch. But in the field of play Jessie James gets his left foot and right knee down with possession of the ball and he is ruled incomplete.
You cannot have it both ways. the ball has to survive the ground rule has to go.

I agree with you. I also wish we had John Madden in the booth. He would be ROASTING the NFL with humor, not making pithy statements or getting the refs in the booth. He would get his whiteboard on the screen, then draw a big foot touching the ground, then the other foot, then the ball in the receiver's hand. THEN BOOOOM thats a catch.

Frank Caliendo would do it great too.