2014-15 NFC North/NFL Thread

[shiloh26]

I know that his injury is more serious but in the grand scheme of memorable sports stories between 1965 and today, Rodgers is playing with a sore leg.


If the call was that simple then it wouldn't have been analyzed and overanalyzed as much as it has been over the last 24 hours. Mike Pereira even admitted that Bryant extended his arm but then said he didn't extend it enough for it to be considered a "football move." That certainly leaves a lot open to interpretation (seems like he either extended his arm or he didn't - cut and dry). The rule will be altered this offseason. Mark it down!

Legitimate question, does anyone have a suggestion as to what the rule would change to?  The only change I can see that would have made a difference is to make a "catch" a purely subjective judgment call, like pass interference or holding.  Maybe that is what folks want, but I can just imagine that a purely subjective test would end much more controversy than the current objective standard (especially if a "catch" would be unreviewable, like other judgement calls).


Full disclosure, I'm a Packers fan, so you can take this as homerism if you like, but, to me, while it was an incredible play on the ball, he just didn't come to the ground with full possession.  I accept that there is a reasonable argument that he possessed it fully before that point.  I think there is an equally reasonable argument that its tough to say he had possession when he's in the process of falling as he catches the ball and the ball hits the ground as he does.  At the very least, even with a purely subjective test, I don't think the clear "catch" everyone is making it out to be.  The fact that it was such a spectacular play on the ball combined with the massive importance of the outcome of the call is causing people to overstate their cases a bit.  

[forgetful]

My brother and I counted banked-in jumpers as misses when we played one-on-one in the driveway. I'm trying to petition the NBA and NCAA to follow suit.

That's not remotely equivalent.  The basketball equivalent would be the ball going through the rim, but not clearing the net.  Some would say that should be a basket. 

I, nor you would count it, as the shot did not complete the process.  A person understanding a score (like a reception) would have understood that it is not a basket.

My point is that even kids understand what it means to make a catch, not that my childhood determined the rules.

[MU B2002]

John Fox out in Denver.  A viable option in Chicago?

[MUsoxfan]

John Fox out in Denver.  A viable option in Chicago?

He's too smart to jump into that dumpster fire

[jesmu84]

John Fox out in Denver.  A viable option in Chicago?

My only preference, as it's pretty obvious we're going through a rebuild/turnover, is someone with a track record of developing young talent.

[MerrittsMustache]

John Fox out in Denver.  A viable option in Chicago?

John Fox would have been an outstanding hire for the 2013 Bears* who were coming off a 10-6 season and needed someone to get them over the hump before their window closed. Instead, the Bears whiffed on the hire of both GM (in 2012) and coach and the window slammed shut.

Fox does have connections to Ernie Accorsi though so you never know.


* - Fox obviously wasn't available at that time. Just saying that he's the type of coach who would be ideal in a "ready to win now" situation.

[RJax55]

John Fox would have been an outstanding hire for the 2013 Bears* who were coming off a 10-6 season and needed someone to get them over the hump before their window closed. Instead, the Bears whiffed on the hire of both GM (in 2012) and coach and the window slammed shut.

Fox does have connections to Ernie Accorsi though so you never know.


* - Fox obviously wasn't available at that time. Just saying that he's the type of coach who would be ideal in a "ready to win now" situation.

Agree. I think the 49ers and Falcons openings should be fairly attractive to Fox. The Bears need a rebuild.

[MUSF]

I see a lot of people calling it a bad rule.  I disagree and always have.  It is a great rule.  If I was the receiver in that same situation, I would not consider that catching the ball.  As a kid when my brother and I practiced diving catches/difficult catches, we wouldn't have counted it as a catch if when going to the ground we lost it. 

Catching the ball should be universally obvious.  If there is any question in my opinion it is not a catch.  When he went to the ground, the ball clearly hit the ground and he lost it...not a catch...never.  To change the rule would be redefining what a catch is.

It's a bad rule.  Calvin Johnson caught a touchdown pass against the Bears a few years ago and deliberately set the ball on the ground to begin celebrating the touchdown.  By rule in the NFL, that was not a catch.  If you and your brother wouldn't have counted that as a catch, you were playing the game wrong!

[forgetful]

It's a bad rule.  Calvin Johnson caught a touchdown pass against the Bears a few years ago and deliberately set the ball on the ground to begin celebrating the touchdown.  By rule in the NFL, that was not a catch.  If you and your brother wouldn't have counted that as a catch, you were playing the game wrong!

In both cases, if the equivalent play happened and when going to the ground the ball was knocked out of their hands, it would not be a fumble, because they hadn't made a football move.

So why should it be a complete catch, if dropping it would also not be a fumble?

[HutchwasClutch]

Packers fans can't say jack. The media is constantly chocking on the Packers and Rodgers collective dick. The one time the media doesn't go your way and you complain. For the record, by the rule book I agree it was not a catch. But it's a bad rule to begin with.

I didn't ask for a Packer bias did I?  I asked for a level of neutrality, that's all.    I don't think it's to much to ask for the official NETWORK OF THE LEAGUE to present an unbiased account and analysis of the games.  It felt like watching a live telecast of a funeral the way Eisen, Deion, and Irvin presented the game and analysis.  The way they run that network is typical of the league's arrogance though. 

[MUSF]

In both cases, if the equivalent play happened and when going to the ground the ball was knocked out of their hands, it would not be a fumble, because they hadn't made a football move.

So why should it be a complete catch, if dropping it would also not be a fumble?

Because CJ caught the ball, got both feet down, fell on his back and then deliberately set the ball on the ground while rolling over. That's a catch in any football league besides the NFL.  A scenario where the ball gets knocked out by a defender can't be used as an "equivalent" in that case.

Plus, CJ was in the end zone when he caught the ball. There are no fumbles in the end zone so again, the comparison isn't valid.  

[forgetful]

Because CJ caught the ball, got both feet down, fell on his back and then deliberately set the ball on the ground while rolling over. That's a catch in any football league besides the NFL.  A scenario where the ball gets knocked out by a defender can't be used as an "equivalent" in that case.

Plus, CJ was in the end zone when he caught the ball. There are no fumbles in the end zone so again, the comparison isn't valid.  

First, CJ didn't "set the ball on the ground" he pushed off the ground with the ball and it came out.  Second, if in the field of play, while moving towards the ground with the ball (same exact scenario), the defender hit the ball and it came out.  It would not have been a fumble, because it was never a complete pass.  A complete pass is a complete pass, whether it is in the end zone or anywhere else.  So they are directly comparable. 

[MUSF]

First, CJ didn't "set the ball on the ground" he pushed off the ground with the ball and it came out.  Second, if in the field of play, while moving towards the ground with the ball (same exact scenario), the defender hit the ball and it came out.  It would not have been a fumble, because it was never a complete pass.  A complete pass is a complete pass, whether it is in the end zone or anywhere else.  So they are directly comparable. 

Ok, I just watched the video again.  Sorry, NFL stadiums and your childhood back yard are the only two places where that play is an incomplete pass. 

[MUSF]

Legitimate question, does anyone have a suggestion as to what the rule would change to?  The only change I can see that would have made a difference is to make a "catch" a purely subjective judgment call, like pass interference or holding.  Maybe that is what folks want, but I can just imagine that a purely subjective test would end much more controversy than the current objective standard (especially if a "catch" would be unreviewable, like other judgement calls).


Full disclosure, I'm a Packers fan, so you can take this as homerism if you like, but, to me, while it was an incredible play on the ball, he just didn't come to the ground with full possession.  I accept that there is a reasonable argument that he possessed it fully before that point.  I think there is an equally reasonable argument that its tough to say he had possession when he's in the process of falling as he catches the ball and the ball hits the ground as he does.  At the very least, even with a purely subjective test, I don't think the clear "catch" everyone is making it out to be.  The fact that it was such a spectacular play on the ball combined with the massive importance of the outcome of the call is causing people to overstate their cases a bit.  

I don't understand how you jump to the conclusion that the only alternative is a purely subjective judgement call.  I think it would be pretty simple.  If a receiver has full possession of the ball when his feet/body hit the ground, it's a catch. If he loses the ball in the process of rolling over, standing up, diving for the end zone, etc., it's a fumble.  If the ball hits the ground before he has full possession, it's an incomplete pass.

Either way, there is a subjective element to it. Eliminating the BS about completing the entire process of the catch wouldn't necessarily make it a purely subjective judgement call.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Bears fans meet your future ex  

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Bears fans meet your future ex  

I am A-ok if Fox is the next coach.

[JuniorCardigan]

Bears reportedly to hire John Fox as the new HC, don't know how good the source is however:

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasyfootball/update/24963554/report-bears-to-hire-john-fox-as-head-coach

#DoneDeal?

[GGGG]

Interesting interview on the Score yesterday about how Accorsi might have known about Fox's discontent in Denver, and that the Bears set this up to get him.  (The GM has ties to the Giants through Sean Payton.)

[MU B2002]

Bears reportedly to hire John Fox as the new HC, don't know how good the source is however:

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasyfootball/update/24963554/report-bears-to-hire-john-fox-as-head-coach

#DoneDeal?

I wouldn't think it is done, as Twitter is really quiet.  Only seems to be one "BleacherReporter" pushing the story.  Also, if done, why did they let him leave Chicago.  Unless it was to go get Gase. 

[MerrittsMustache]

Interesting interview on the Score yesterday about how Accorsi might have known about Fox's discontent in Denver, and that the Bears set this up to get him.  (The GM has ties to the Giants through Sean Payton.)

I find it a bit far-fetched that the Bears would hire Pace in large part because he worked with a head coach who had worked on the same staff with another current head coach who may be on the way out. Seems like a stretch. One would think that Accorsi's connection to Fox would be enough.

[JWags85]

If this turns into Fox with Gase as OC and bringing back Dennis Allen as DC, color me pretty excited, all things considered.

[jesmu84]

I wouldn't think it is done, as Twitter is really quiet.  Only seems to be one "BleacherReporter" pushing the story.  Also, if done, why did they let him leave Chicago.  Unless it was to go get Gase. 

They let Pace leave. Then He returned the next day as GM

[MU B2002]

They let Pace leave. Then He returned the next day as GM

True.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Respect the process

[wadesworld]

Respect the process

Spot on.