RE: OT: If the ground can't cause a fumble...
Sheesh... USC interception just now... it "stood," but another unnecessary review if we were playing under traditional rules.
No offense, john, but like you, I know the two rules, and I understand them, and as long as the standard is equally applied to both teams, no one is actually harmed.
I'm only arguing for logical consistency... the rule changed, and I understand that they're simply trying to make it less of an official's judgment call by strictly saying the ground cannot AT ALL affect the reception/interception/catch... previously, there was human assessment of whether the ball was trapped, ie egregious assistance from the ground in making the catch.
But the principle that the ground cannot cause of fumble implies that a player ought to be able to make a catch in mid-air, bring it into his body, and then upon making contact with the ground, it shouldn't matter whether the player maintains control... the ball is dead upon contact.
Similarly... consider the fact that when a player RUNS OVER THE GOAL LINE, the ball is effectively dead AS SOON AS THE BALL BREAKS THE PLANE... but, but, but... if a player CATCHES the ball, brings it into his body, and falls to the ground, the ball still isn't dead UNTIL HE "COMPLETES" the play by maintaining control even after hitting the ground--even to the point, that when he hits the ground, if the ball even MOVES in his arms, we now call that an incomplete pass.
The principle should be the principle, and it should evident in how the rules are observed.
I just hate inconsistency, and especially when we end up watching these amazing catches that, for the first 40 or so years of my 45 or so years of watching this game, were called completions or interceptions... and now we have these nit-picky calls that eliminate some truly athletic plays from counting.
(This post was last modified: 12-27-2014 09:58 PM by _sturt_.)
|