The Dez Bryant catch.

[Brian Fein]

I don't see where you are getting your information.

My proposal includes all rules of acquiring the football that are in place today.  No change to any rules or judgment until the receiver goes to the ground.  The difference is that when the player is tackled, the play ends.  Ball comes out after the knee is down?  Who cares?  Catch and down by contact.

I don't see any situation where that could be called a fumble.

Player gets hit WHILE catching the ball and ball is jarred loose?  Incomplete pass.  Plain and simple.

I'm essentially removing the "retain possession throughout the act of going to the ground" requirement, which is the one I think is the most objectionable.  When the player hits the ground, the play is over.

Please re-read my proposal and give me an example of a play where it would create a fumble under the rule set I proposed, where today it would be called an incomplete pass.

[Brian Fein]

Here is a PERFECT EXAMPLE...

Watch this video in full.  The referee's explanation is important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v6FaNGZGtg

This is a catch.  Full on.  The play should be OVER the instant any contact is made with the white line.  The fact that the ball was dropped AFTER the player went out of bounds should have NO BEARING on the fact that he caught the ball, took two steps in bounds, and then fell down out of bounds.

In the case of the Dez Bryant play, it would be a question of which happened first - the knee touching the ground or the ball coming loose?  I think the knee was down, thus the ruling would be "completed pass, down by contact" at that spot.

[Spider-Dan]

Again, here's the issue: possession is possession, whether you're at a sideline, the goal line, or the middle of the field.  So this kind of rule change eliminates "incomplete pass" as an option in many situations, and turns more loose balls at the end of the play into either "down by contact" or "fumble."

You can't have one standard for possession at a boundary line and another standard for possession in the middle of the field.

[Brian Fein]

You can't have one standard for possession at a boundary line and another standard for possession in the middle of the field.

When did I propose a different standard?  In fact...

The rule would act similarly for players going out of bounds or crossing a goal line. 

Unless now you're arguing the semantics of my choice of the word "similarly" as opposed to "identically"

[Spider-Dan]

You're proposing these changes (and that's what they are: changes from the status quo) in a bunch of situations (out-of-bounds, end zone, grounded player) where as soon as possession is confirmed, the play is almost immediately over anyway before there's an opportunity to fumble.  OK, great.  But what about when it's NOT immediately over?

You cannot determine whether or not it is possession based on whether he would be down, or in the end zone, etc.  So if we reduce the threshold for what constitutes possession (which is what you are talking about), then there will be many more bang-bang plays in the middle of the field (when a player ISN'T diving to the ground) that are now "cheap fumbles."  These plays are currently ruled incomplete passes.

[fyo]

Brian, what about the situation where a player goes up and grabs a ball, full control, and falls down on his back, the ball popping out immediately. That doesn't feel like a catch to me,  but since the player's back hits the ground first, it's a completed pass (and a fumble, unless he was touched in the air).

Just as wrong from a gut feeling as the Calvin Johnson non-catch.

I really don't have a big preference... Both ways result in calls I disagree with from that instinctive "was it a catch" place. For once, the NFL has chosen a rule that favors the defense. Hard to complain about that.

[Brian Fein]

Brian, what about the situation where a player goes up and grabs a ball, full control, and falls down on his back, the ball popping out immediately. That doesn't feel like a catch to me,  but since the player's back hits the ground first, it's a completed pass (and a fumble, unless he was touched in the air).

Just as wrong from a gut feeling as the Calvin Johnson non-catch.

I really don't have a big preference... Both ways result in calls I disagree with from that instinctive "was it a catch" place. For once, the NFL has chosen a rule that favors the defense. Hard to complain about that.

Thanks, this is a great example of how my theory wouldn't work in practice. 

So, how do you modify it to make it better?

[Pappy13]

So if we reduce the threshold for what constitutes possession (which is what you are talking about), then there will be many more bang-bang plays in the middle of the field (when a player ISN'T diving to the ground) that are now "cheap fumbles."  These plays are currently ruled incomplete passes.

I don't think it would be as many as you think it would be and really what's wrong with a WR catching a pass being hit and fumbling the football? What's cheap about that? I think there are a lot of plays ruled as an incomplete pass that should have been ruled a catch and fumble. With all the rules there are now about you can't hit a defenseless player (WR) CB's and Safeties can't just head hunt the way they used to. Most of the time a WR has an opportunity to catch a pass with being decked in next fraction of a second.

[Spider-Dan]

And that's fine: if you don't mind an increase in both catches AND fumbles, then so be it.  But let's not pretend that we can have one without the other.