so, uh, am I the only more confused about the new "catch rules"?
The rule now states that a receiver must establish himself as a runner rather than just make a football move.
Establishing one's self as a runner is entirely vague. What is a runner? Isn't someone who's diving to the ground not a runner?
As per the Dez no-catch, I think he made a clear and defined football move. I don't think it should've been called a catch because he didn't complete the process of going to the ground, but he did have the football move in there (reaching for the goal line). But how the hell does one establish themselves as a runner?
RottingCarcassOfJagr wrote:so, uh, am I the only more confused about the new "catch rules"?
The rule now states that a receiver must establish himself as a runner rather than just make a football move.
Establishing one's self as a runner is entirely vague. What is a runner? Isn't someone who's diving to the ground not a runner?
As per the Dez no-catch, I think he made a clear and defined football move. I don't think it should've been called a catch because he didn't complete the process of going to the ground, but he did have the football move in there (reaching for the goal line). But how the hell does one establish themselves as a runner?
RottingCarcassOfJagr wrote:so, uh, am I the only more confused about the new "catch rules"?
The rule now states that a receiver must establish himself as a runner rather than just make a football move.
Establishing one's self as a runner is entirely vague. What is a runner? Isn't someone who's diving to the ground not a runner?
As per the Dez no-catch, I think he made a clear and defined football move. I don't think it should've been called a catch because he didn't complete the process of going to the ground, but he did have the football move in there (reaching for the goal line). But how the hell does one establish themselves as a runner?
Has anyone heard about Belichick's rant at the meetings this week? Basically tearing into the NFL for spending endless millions of dollars on sending the Pro Bowl abroad, etc, but refusing to install some extra cameras near the end zone to allow for more accurate replay challenges. The guy can be absolutely loathsome, but he's absolutely correct.
shafnutz05 wrote:Has anyone heard about Belichick's rant at the meetings this week? Basically tearing into the NFL for spending endless millions of dollars on sending the Pro Bowl abroad, etc, but refusing to install some extra cameras near the end zone to allow for more accurate replay challenges. The guy can be absolutely loathsome, but he's absolutely correct.
I heard it, and agree that I hate him, but he ain't wrong.
RottingCarcassOfJagr wrote:so, uh, am I the only more confused about the new "catch rules"?
The rule now states that a receiver must establish himself as a runner rather than just make a football move.
Establishing one's self as a runner is entirely vague. What is a runner? Isn't someone who's diving to the ground not a runner?
As per the Dez no-catch, I think he made a clear and defined football move. I don't think it should've been called a catch because he didn't complete the process of going to the ground, but he did have the football move in there (reaching for the goal line). But how the hell does one establish themselves as a runner?
shafnutz05 wrote:Has anyone heard about Belichick's rant at the meetings this week? Basically tearing into the NFL for spending endless millions of dollars on sending the Pro Bowl abroad, etc, but refusing to install some extra cameras near the end zone to allow for more accurate replay challenges. The guy can be absolutely loathsome, but he's absolutely correct.
I heard it, and agree that I hate him, but he ain't wrong.
Yeah, that's confusing. With the technology available today, I don't understand why the pylons don't have GoPro cameras in them.
They send the Pro Bowl to wonderful places because that's the only way they can get players to actually show up.
League rules prohibit teams from using any electronic devices beginning 90 minutes before kickoff through the end of a game. The rule forbids communication to the sidelines, coach's booths, locker room or any other club-controlled areas. The only exceptions are the league-issued tablets coaches use for still photos.
I'm going to guess she's done a ton of big game DI college games, so it'll be fine. But still, you're putting her in one of the most sexist sports in America. It'll be fun.
RottingCarcassOfJagr wrote:I'm going to guess she's done a ton of big game DI college games, so it'll be fine. But still, you're putting her in one of the most sexist sports in America. It'll be fun.
Won't be surprised if she takes a bump in the first game or two.
I'm obviously completely fine with a female ref if its who is the best person for the job. Based on the timing though, I wonder if its a PR move given all the hits NFL has taken with domestic abuse scandals
It's not just the domestic violence stuff, it's the concern of keeping football relevant. Why doesthe NFL goes pink every October? Moms are less and less likely to let their sons play footall.
tifosi77 wrote:It's not just the domestic violence stuff, it's the concern of keeping football relevant. Why doesthe NFL goes pink every October? Moms are less and less likely to let their sons play footall.
From what I understand, DeAngelo Williams campaigned hard for the pink stuff... That being said, I'm sure they thought it'd be great PR move (when they previously wouldn't even allow such things as Jake Plummer having something on his shoes for Pat Tillman / Big Ben having Play For Jesus on his shoes).
