Can the "catch rule" be fixed?

[BrokenArrow]

With Goodell pushing the rules committee for a fix to the leagues currently abysmal catch rule, what do you see as the best fix to make the rule clearer and less subject to interpretation?

My solution is fairly simple (I think, until you guys point out all of its flaws .)

Part 1: Dump the requirement to "survive the catch to the ground." Ball control + 2 feet or 1 knee, elbow, butt cheek, etc = a catch. If the player is falling to the ground in the act of the catch it doesn't matter if the ball moves after touching the ground as long as the ball is controlled all the way to the ground. No "football move." No Bert Emmanuel rule. No Calvin Johnson rule.

Part 2 (optional): Assuming Part 1 is satisfied, if the ball comes completely out of the player's possession upon hitting the ground, then the ball is dead at that spot. If it simply moves in his hands or arms but the receiver is able to keep it from coming loose, he can get up and advance the ball.

If Part 2 is still too subjective, then the play is dead any time the ball touches the ground after the catch as defined by Part 1.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

Agree, but would call Part 2 a fumble if the ball comes loose immediately after the receiver hits the ground. It will only be dead ball completion if the receiver was forced to the ground or made contact with an opponent as they were going to (or landed on) the ground.

 

[yooperpackfan]

Do away with replays and let the refs call the plays in real time without the "eye in the sky".
With that said, I'm in full agreement with point 1.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

With Goodell pushing the rules committee for a fix to the leagues currently abysmal catch rule, what do you see as the best fix to make the rule clearer and less subject to interpretation?

My solution is fairly simple (I think, until you guys point out all of its flaws .)

Part 1: Dump the requirement to "survive the catch to the ground." Ball control + 2 feet or 1 knee, elbow, butt cheek, etc = a catch. If the player is falling to the ground in the act of the catch it doesn't matter if the ball moves after touching the ground as long as the ball is controlled all the way to the ground. No "football move." No Bert Emmanuel rule. No Calvin Johnson rule.

Part 2 (optional): Assuming Part 1 is satisfied, if the ball comes completely out of the player's possession upon hitting the ground, then the ball is dead at that spot. If it simply moves in his hands or arms but the receiver is able to keep it from coming loose, he can get up and advance the ball.

If Part 2 is still too subjective, then the play is dead any time the ball touches the ground after the catch as defined by Part 1.

I honestly don't know how to phrase the rule to make it work perfectly. Just for the record the current one states that the receiver has to control the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. There's no mention of a football move within the rules at the moment.

 

[Mondio]

I'd rather dump replay. And IMO, they need to survive the ground, just as they need to survive a defender. If they're going to start awarding instantaneous catches, then the ground better damn well be able to cause a fumble just like a hit from a defender can.

It's already too easy to ply offense. I'm not in favor of tilting the rules further in their favor.

 

[AmishMafia]

Your definition will never work. IThe catch is defined as it is because it evolved over the years to help provide clarity.

It is inherently a gray area. If you change the line of the definition, the gray area doesnt go away, it only moves.

Take your definition above, which I think increases the gray area. What does ball control mean? By your definition, anytime the receiver drops a pass, it is a reception and a fumble. If the ball hits his hands for a moment, bobbles, and then hits the ground, that is a catch. Even though watching it, it doesn't feel like a catch. The argument would become how long of holding it, constitutes control? "Become a runner" must be a part of the definition, it' the easiest and cleanest.

 

[PackerDNA]

With Goodell pushing the rules committee for a fix to the leagues currently abysmal catch rule, what do you see as the best fix to make the rule clearer and less subject to interpretation?

My solution is fairly simple (I think, until you guys point out all of its flaws .)

Part 1: Dump the requirement to "survive the catch to the ground." Ball control + 2 feet or 1 knee, elbow, butt cheek, etc = a catch. If the player is falling to the ground in the act of the catch it doesn't matter if the ball moves after touching the ground as long as the ball is controlled all the way to the ground. No "football move." No Bert Emmanuel rule. No Calvin Johnson rule.

Part 2 (optional): Assuming Part 1 is satisfied, if the ball comes completely out of the player's possession upon hitting the ground, then the ball is dead at that spot. If it simply moves in his hands or arms but the receiver is able to keep it from coming loose, he can get up and advance the ball.

If Part 2 is still too subjective, then the play is dead any time the ball touches the ground after the catch as defined by Part 1.

Your entire argument is flawed in that you are making too much sense. You'll never work in the NFL.

 

[RepStar15]

I think the NFL really needs to decide one thing: do they think it’s a catch if any part of the ball touches the ground reguardless if control is maintained. If they make the rule that it is incomplete if any part of the ball touches the ground, that will take the “maintain control” piece out of it. Though I do not necessarily like a rule that would say Anytime any part of the ball touches the ground it is automatically incomplete, that is probably the only way to make it black and white. That would mean that Byrd did not catch the ball in the back of the end zone during the Panthers/Packers game, Brandin Cooks did not catch the game winning ball in the end zone of the Patriots/Texans game, and Jesse James did not catch the ball at the end of the Patriots/Steelers game (same call).

 

[Poppa San]

I think the NFL really needs to decide one thing: do they think it’s a catch if any part of the ball touches the ground reguardless if control is maintained. If they make the rule that it is incomplete if any part of the ball touches the ground, that will take the “maintain control” piece out of it. Though I do not necessarily like a rule that would say Anytime any part of the ball touches the ground it is automatically incomplete, that is probably the only way to make it black and white. That would mean that Byrd did not catch the ball in the back of the end zone during the Panthers/Packers game, Brandin Cooks did not catch the game winning ball in the end zone of the Patriots/Texans game, and Jesse James did not catch the ball at the end of the Patriots/Steelers game (same call).

That was the rule previously and players that had full control lost receptions for the tip of the ball grazing the turf. Same arguments, different suspects as you have now.
I would redefine going to the ground part as unassisted ie a diving catch. Tackled gives the benefit of the doubt and possession to the receiver.

 

[Half Empty]

I think the NFL really needs to decide one thing: do they think it’s a catch if any part of the ball touches the ground reguardless if control is maintained. If they make the rule that it is incomplete if any part of the ball touches the ground, that will take the “maintain control” piece out of it. Though I do not necessarily like a rule that would say Anytime any part of the ball touches the ground it is automatically incomplete, that is probably the only way to make it black and white. That would mean that Byrd did not catch the ball in the back of the end zone during the Panthers/Packers game, Brandin Cooks did not catch the game winning ball in the end zone of the Patriots/Texans game, and Jesse James did not catch the ball at the end of the Patriots/Steelers game (same call).

I'm basically on the side of whoever said let the refs call it. I think a catch is like ****, in the one aspect that it's really hard to define, but we know it when we see it. I was glad the Dez 'catch' against the Pack was disallowed, but I sure thought, throughout the replays, that it was a phenomenal grab.

As regards your proposal, it might eliminate 'control' as a factor if the ball touches the ground, but what about a receiver falling on his back and having the ball bounce out (or jiggle around) - wouldn't 'control' have to come into play somewhere?

 

[RepStar15]

I'm basically on the side of whoever said let the refs call it. I think a catch is like ****, in the one aspect that it's really hard to define, but we know it when we see it. I was glad the Dez 'catch' against the Pack was disallowed, but I sure thought, throughout the replays, that it was a phenomenal grab.

As regards your proposal, it might eliminate 'control' as a factor if the ball touches the ground, but what about a receiver falling on his back and having the ball bounce out (or jiggle around) - wouldn't 'control' have to come into play somewhere?

In that instance control does matter, I meant control would be an eliminated factor as far as when the ball hits the ground. When the ball hits the ground is where the real ambiguity comes into play. We all know what a catch is, if a player maintains control of the ball vs. does not maintain control of the ball, I do not think those calls are ever highly debated. It’s when the ball hits the ground, it’s unclear, because if the ball hits the ground don’t you lose control for a split second anyway?

 

[Half Empty]

Sorry, this discussion was getting so deep that I misinterpreted the baseline.

 

[ARPackFan]

If you eliminate the survive the catch and a receiver lets loose of the ball falling out of the end zone after getting two feet down then is it a fumble? Then isn't that a touch back and the defending team gets the ball at the 20? Under the current rule it is now an incomplete pass instead of a turnover. Rules should cut both ways.

My biggest issue with rules is that they change based upon location on the field. I have always thought that if two feet in bounds is required for a sideline catch then it should apply anywhere on the field. Once a receiver gets two feet down they become runner and a ball knocked out after the second foot becomes a fumble. No subjective "football move" nonsense. The problem with this is that it would reward/encourage hard hits by defenders which is contrary to the leagues defenseless player rules.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In that instance control does matter, I meant control would be an eliminated factor as far as when the ball hits the ground. When the ball hits the ground is where the real ambiguity comes into play. We all know what a catch is, if a player maintains control of the ball vs. does not maintain control of the ball, I do not think those calls are ever highly debated. It’s when the ball hits the ground, it’s unclear, because if the ball hits the ground don’t you lose control for a split second anyway?

Agree. I'm in the school of the ground should no be able to aid in making a catch at anytime during the process of a catch. Defining "aid" is where too much gray area comes in. If any portion of the ball touches the ground before a clear reception, it should be incomplete IMO. For someone to determine whether the ground "helped or didn't help" make the catch is clearly a judgment call and one you see various opinions on by broadcasters, fans, officials, etc.

 

[rmontro]

I must be in the minority here, but I think the rule is fine as it is. I like the "survive the ground" rule, it makes things very clear IMO. I can look at any of these so called "controversial" non-catches and tell without difficulty why it wasn't a catch. The only reason people don't like it is because someone's team didn't get a touchdown on it - Dez Bryant or whoever. Sour grapes.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I'd rather dump replay. And IMO, they need to survive the ground, just as they need to survive a defender. If they're going to start awarding instantaneous catches, then the ground better damn well be able to cause a fumble just like a hit from a defender can.

It's already too easy to ply offense. I'm not in favor of tilting the rules further in their favor.

So you favor the status quo?

 

[BrokenArrow]

Agree, but would call Part 2 a fumble if the ball comes loose immediately after the receiver hits the ground. It will only be dead ball completion if the receiver was forced to the ground or made contact with an opponent as they were going to (or landed on) the ground.

Okay. I could see that as a possibility. So in your scenario the Dez Bryant play would have resulted in a catch and a fumble?

 

[Mondio]

So you favor the status quo?

i'm in favor of dumping replay and having officials with the balls to make a call and stick to it. get in the game and call it. Live with your mistakes. I do not like what replay has done for the game. and I think it will continue to create more controversy rather than fix anything. It's not fixing anything, merely changing things. there's more controversy now in every single game than ever. On top of it, it erodes officiating because instead of trusting what they see, they think,ahhh, let replay figure it out. Until replay can't.

ETA: but if I was going to change anything or not, I think "surviving the ground" needs to stay in place. Catch and keep it, or don't. If they want to change that, then there better be another 5 or so instantaneous catches and fumbles in every game. If they aren't going to call them fumbles, or the ground can't cause it, then they better not be giving them instantaneous catches either.

 

[BrokenArrow]

If you eliminate the survive the catch and a receiver lets loose of the ball falling out of the end zone after getting two feet down then is it a fumble? Then isn't that a touch back and the defending team gets the ball at the 20? Under the current rule it is now an incomplete pass instead of a turnover. Rules should cut both ways.

I think in the endzone the play would be over as soon as possession and two feet occur, immediately resulting in a TD. What happens after the player hits the ground then becomes irrelevant.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I honestly don't know how to phrase the rule to make it work perfectly. Just for the record the current one states that the receiver has to control the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. There's no mention of a football move within the rules at the moment.

So why do Blandino and Perreira always reference the "football move" during their replay commentary during games? Is it simply a misnomer for the requirement to become a runner?

 

[BrokenArrow]

Your definition will never work. IThe catch is defined as it is because it evolved over the years to help provide clarity.

It is inherently a gray area. If you change the line of the definition, the gray area doesnt go away, it only moves.

Take your definition above, which I think increases the gray area. What does ball control mean? By your definition, anytime the receiver drops a pass, it is a reception and a fumble. If the ball hits his hands for a moment, bobbles, and then hits the ground, that is a catch. Even though watching it, it doesn't feel like a catch. The argument would become how long of holding it, constitutes control? "Become a runner" must be a part of the definition, it' the easiest and cleanest.

But the "become a runner" part is NOT easy and clean. That's the problem. IMO, Allison had not become a runner yet when his play against Carolina was ruled a catch and fumble. Control has always been part of the rule. That part can continue to be judged as is.

 

[AmishMafia]

But the "become a runner" part is NOT easy and clean. That's the problem. IMO, Allison had not become a runner yet when his play against Carolina was ruled a catch and fumble. Control has always been part of the rule. That part can continue to be judged as is.

I agree "become a runner" is tough to judge, but it is a lot easier to call then control. If we had 100 confusing "become a runner" calls last season you will have 300 confusing control calls next season.

Think about it, what constitutes control? At least once a game a ball bounces from the hands of a WR. Under your plan thats a catch and a fumble. He had it for 1/4 of a second or for even 1/100 of a second for that matter. Are you going to add a time element? That would screw the flow of the game up.

Hell, you can show that swatting the ball down by the DB, as long as the ball goes towards the QB, that is some level of control. That's an interception and a free ball.

 

[gonzozab]

It's crazy because I was watching Super Bowl highlights this past weekend on NFL Network and there were two touchdown passes, one in Super Bowl 37 and one in 44, that were ruled incomplete on the field and then overturned on replay to touchdowns that would most certainly be called incomplete today. Jon Gruden was screaming at the refs if they were out of their skulls. When between then and now did the rule mysteriously change?

Edit. The Saints touchdown was actually a 2 point conversion.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[BrokenArrow]

i'm in favor of dumping replay and having officials with the balls to make a call and stick to it. get in the game and call it. Live with your mistakes.

It's not just the refs that have to live with their mistakes. It's the players and fans too. Teams have been robbed of playoff wins on plays that would have easily been overturned on replay. What if they had called Cook out of bounds last year against the Cowboys and there was no replay to rectify what was one of the greatest plays of all time?

I agree "become a runner" is tough to judge, but it is a lot easier to call then control. If we had 100 confusing "become a runner" calls last season you will have 300 confusing control calls next season.

Think about it, what constitutes control?

The same thing that constitutes control now.

Hell, you can show that swatting the ball down by the DB, as long as the ball goes towards the QB, that is some level of control. That's an interception and a free ball.

I think you're abandoning common sense and being a bit ridiculous in what you ascertain here.

 

[AmishMafia]

. . . .

The same thing that constitutes control now.

Not really. You are removing the football move which has a time element incorporated into it. This is a bigger difference than you are thinking.

I think you're abandoning common sense and being a bit ridiculous in what you ascertain here.

Yes, but I just illustrated through exaggeration. With only control, it will be include a lot of instances were it does not seem like a catch. He controlled it for a fraction of a second and then dropped it. You can't say he didn't control it, but it sure doesnt look like a catch.

Watch the Superbowl with what I am saying in mind. I have done a lot of thinking on this matter and always come back to the curre nt rule is probably the best.