I’m not the most dedicated NFL watcher either, but I’ve heard the term for a few years now. The date of the OP suggests at least nine years. Im not entirely sure what its origin is, since it does not appear in the rules, as far as I know,
The rules use the term “act common to the game” but in common speak that has become “football move”. It’s been around since the rule was put in place.
In rugby, to score a try, you have to touch the ball to the ground in the endzone.
Good point…I didn’t notice that the thread was nine years old.
Are we talking about fumbles as the OP suggests or possession relative to Calvin Johnson and the call this past Sunday? I’m more curious about the latter.
In post #19 joedrumma kindly lists the rule definition, but from what I understand about that given the added emphasis from the Dallas/GB divisional championship game this past weekend there’s an additional component to it as well. In my estimation Dez Bryant fulfilled the ‘act common to the game’ or ‘football move’ component when he caught the ball over his right shoulder with two hands, and subsequently shifted it to his left side and a single hand and began his stretch to the nearby endzone in the brief time before his body and forward motion impacted the ground and he was down. But the explanations I’ve heard since mention that those motions don’t constitute a football move since they happened while he was on his way down and that, combined with the ball moving, even though he maintained possession, negate the catch. Or did I misunderstand that?
I think you may have misunderstood. The rules (listed in the other thread on this) make it clear the receiver needs to both possess long enough for a football move AND maintain control after going to the ground (the ball may touch the ground, but only if possession is maintained throughout). Everyone agrees that Dez met the first part (again it doesn’t matter whether he actually made a football move, just that he held on to it long enough that he could have). But, when he fell, the ball hit the ground and popped up out of his possession. That means he didn’t meet the second part, and so it was an incomplete pass.
Why did the NFL decide they had to make the rule so complicated and subjective…what’s a “football move”; when does the “whatever rolling around is” stop?
Why isn’t clear posession while/plus in the field of play adequate?
Because “clear possession” as a basis for the rules is even more subjective than the rule as it now stands. What constitutes “clear possession?” If you’re going to offer a definition, then you’re creating a rule that - while it may or may not be different from the current one, is no less complicated and subjective. if you’re not going to offer a definition, then you’re basically just saying, “it’s a catch if the ref decides it’s a catch,” which is unsatisfying and creates even more problems.
The issue, I think, is that any time you’re trying to make a rule that covers literally hundreds of thousands of possible variations, no matter how you draw your lines there will be some variations that appear to be at odds with common sense. Change the rules because of the Dez Bryant catch, and eventually there will be a catch that common sense appears to say is incomplete that must be ruled complete according to your revised rule. There is no way to make a perfect rule that will consistently result in an outcome that seems “correct” to everyone. Unless you’re willing to simply leave it completely subjective and up to the discretion of the ref… but can you imagine what a mess that would be?
NM dup post.
I disagree (strongly)…“possession” is already a factor. It’s just a matter of how long. Why extend the time period from that required to be ruled in bounds to…whatever the hell it is now?