Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerUmp
It's not irrelevant at all. It's the issue people have with the rule. I completely understand the rule as interpreted. It's also clearly not consistently applied, and a rule that has plays such as this not be a touchdown is flawed. If this rule were applied consistently, maybe it could be acceptable, but it's not.
I think a better option needs to be put in place, even if it increases subjectivity. The supposed objectivity that comes with the rule in its current form is undercut by poor replay decisions from New York.
|
I disagree with the lack of consistency. If you understand what the rule means it is significantly more consistent. Announcers and fans feel it's not consistent because they don't know the rule. I feel the same way when I watch basketball. It seems like block/charge and other fouls are very inconsistently called. But I'm smart enough to know I don't understand the rule and how it's called.
When I sit in association and study group meetings and we discuss catch/no catch plays there is a lot less debate about them, especially when the receiver is going to the ground. It takes away so many things you may have previously considered. Did he maintain control? Did the loose ball hit the ground? If the first question is yes and the second question is no you have a catch. It's as simple as that. Bang bang hits that cause the ball to come loose, incomplete. There is still some gray area but it is so much smaller and that leads to consistency. If you don't feel it's there you are buying what the commentators are selling.