New catch rules are dumb

[hdevonxz]

Seriously, how is that not a catch? Come on now.

[Phil Dees]

Same as if it was on the sideline. If you don't have possession and step out of bounds, it's incomplete.

[mr beauxjangles]

game thread...

[hdevonxz]

Same as if it was on the sideline. If you don't have possession and step out of bounds, it's incomplete.

landed on elbow with ball. possession.

[Phil Dees]

landed on elbow with ball. possession.

Didn't have possession.

[Kettle]

his knee was down in bounds, and he had possession with both hands. the ball never touched the ground. be damned if i understand these rules at this point in time.

[Phil Dees]

he had possession with both hands.

Not when reviewed.

[Snake]

If they are gonna call that a no catch then they need to let WRs use tar again. I mean damn that was about as much of a catch as it gets. Half of the Jets WRs did the same thing and yea the ball moved.

[Kettle]

Not when reviewed.

i saw the play. i stand firm in that he had possession when his knee was down in the end zone. he then started bringing it into his chest as he was falling to his back. thats when the ball rotated a little bit, but with being down in the endzone it shouldn't have mattered IMO.

some of the new rules are retarted. another one I won't be a fan of is how they are proposing talking about protecting RBs n the offseason. saying they may create a rule where D players can't go at RBs were their heads even if they are going face first. in turn they could make the rule say that RBs can't lower their shoulders to eliminate worry of head injuries for D players. i don't know how this game will continue to entertain me if BS rules continue to be implemented.

[jdpanthers1]

Bad rule, the ball moved a little, did not hit the ground.