Can the "catch rule" be fixed?

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
no replay to rectify what was one of the greatest plays of all time?

As much as some **** and moan about various aspects of instant replay, I don't think it will ever not be used. Fans, players, media, etc would blow their Firetrucking minds after the first blown call in a big situation that replay would have gotten right.

Replay and rules will continue to be tweaked, but replay will always be a part of the NFL.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
As much as some **** and moan about various aspects of instant replay, I don't think it will ever not be used. Fans, players, media, etc would blow their Firetrucking minds after the first blown call in a big situation that replay would have gotten right.

Replay and rules will continue to be tweaked, but replay will always be a part of the NFL.
The reason we have replay is because fans were pissing and moaning over bad calls. You can never please everyone. As for me, I'm all for it.

My biggest complaint is the ref running to the sidelines to watch the play. When replay first came out they felt they wanted 1 ref in charge of the game so they insisted that the head ref view the replay. For me, I think it is silly. Have a ref in the booth who is called the replay ref. He can overturn calls during a challenge or other reviews. No ref running to the sidelines, which takes up time. This ref would have access and control over several synced monitors with all camera shots. He would additionally have comms with NY where a couple senior refs are able to discuss anything should the need arise. This will alleviate the biggest complaint which is slowing down the game, make the replay more seamless.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
For me- and it's debatable what can be done about it and to what degree- the non calls and inability to review certain things can be as much of a problem if not more than blown calls.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
The reason we have replay is because fans were pissing and moaning over bad calls. You can never please everyone. As for me, I'm all for it.

My biggest complaint is the ref running to the sidelines to watch the play. When replay first came out they felt they wanted 1 ref in charge of the game so they insisted that the head ref view the replay. For me, I think it is silly. Have a ref in the booth who is called the replay ref. He can overturn calls during a challenge or other reviews. No ref running to the sidelines, which takes up time. This ref would have access and control over several synced monitors with all camera shots. He would additionally have comms with NY where a couple senior refs are able to discuss anything should the need arise. This will alleviate the biggest complaint which is slowing down the game, make the replay more seamless.

Fully agree. I have never understood the use of an on field official, who is under the gun to get the call he may have made right, standing in possible bad weather conditions, viewing a tiny screen while fans, players and other officials are breathing down their necks to make the "right call".

As you said, let the decision be made somewhere else by someone not involved in the original decision. Put the decision in the hands of a rules expert who is away from the field in a 68 degree booth/office, very large monitor, replay equipment, etc. If you are going to use technology to get a call correct, do it right!
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
40 years later they still don't know if it was really the immaculate reception or deception and you could start a thread on it today and they'd argue about it like they have been since it happened. 40 years of pouring over that play and still there isn't a definitive answer, who did it bounce off of? Penalty or clean play? did the ball touch the ground? was it a catch
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?





The same thing that constitutes control now.



I think you're abandoning common sense and being a bit ridiculous in what you ascertain here.
[/QUOTE]
ao what. They call him out of bounds and there's controversy for years after. Just like the Jerry Rice fumble against us that wasn't called. I get it. Mistakes will happen. But just this year Jesse James caught the ball and scored a TD. Then they replayed it and then ball moved and they called it a non catch. Most people still think he caught it and it was a TD first. That controversy won't go away either.

So what did you change? A couple calls, did you make the game better? Did you get rid of controversy? There is flipping controversy in practically every game every week surrounding replay. Clearly they aren't getting them all right.

I realize they aren't getting rid of it. If anything it should be stripped down not added to.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
For me- and it's debatable what can be done about it and to what degree- the non calls and inability to review certain things can be as much of a problem if not more than blown calls.

The college game is ahead of the NFL IMO when it comes to instant replay. If there is an apparent targeting on the field, someone in the booth can stop play and get it right. People complain that reviews slow up a game, yes they do, but for a good purpose, getting a call correct. I find it pretty funny that the NFL makes a boatload of cash from the Networks, who make their money on timeouts and TV commercials, which slow up the game. So plan on having interruptions for reviews during a game and run ads during them, instead of running 4-6 commercials after every change of possession or timeout. You don't really notice it unless you are at the game, but there is a lot of time spent by players standing around, waiting for "the commercials to end".
 
OP
OP
BrokenArrow

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
1,352
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.

You do know that the "football move" concept didn't exist until about 20 years ago, right? Even now, nobody seems to agree on exactly what that is.

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.

Watch this then use common sense and tell me that there's not a problem with the current rule. One could even argue that the way he twisted his torso and reached for the end zone constitutes a so-called "football move" or "an act common to the game" if you will. Now imagine losing the Super Bowl if that was the last play. Twenty years ago it would have been ruled a catch and nobody would have argued otherwise.

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

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
Watch this then use common sense and tell me that there's not a problem with the current rule. One could even argue that the way he twisted his torso and reached for the end zone constitutes a so-called "football move" or "an act common to the game" if you will. Now imagine losing the Super Bowl if that was the last play. Twenty years ago it would have been ruled a catch and nobody would have argued otherwise.
I didn't say the rule was perfect. I'm saying no definition is going to be perfect. If you think your solution resolves the matter, I dont. I think it creates different and more problems.

Did you post that video? It was taken down by the NFL already.
 

gonzozab

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
287
Location
Parts unknown
I didn't say the rule was perfect. I'm saying no definition is going to be perfect. If you think your solution resolves the matter, I dont. I think it creates different and more problems.

Did you post that video? It was taken down by the NFL already.
Click on "watch on youtube".
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,775
Reaction score
183
I've never had a problem understanding the rule and even though there are times that you'd think the wording should be different it's fine the way it is
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
4,611
Reaction score
1,285
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?
We'd still be complaining about it. And rightfully so.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
I've never had a problem understanding the rule and even though there are times that you'd think the wording should be different it's fine the way it is
I "understand" it too... just don't like it..... I'm leaning towards Udonta's idea.
 
OP
OP
BrokenArrow

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
1,352
I "understand" it too... just don't like it..... I'm leaning towards Udonta's idea.
And I never said mine was the best by any means. Obviously, it would need refinement and was really only intended as a starting point for ideas. But the status quo is just too subjective, too ambiguous and open to interpretation. While no definition can be perfect, it stands to reason that the simpler the rule can be made, the less room there is for debate. Maybe the answer is as easy as limiting reviews on catches to whether or not the player had two feet in bounds and making the question of whether or not the ball moved in a players arms/hands 1/8" after contacting the ground nonrenewable. That would allow the "eye test" and common sense be a more prevalent part of the rule rather than slow-mo, microscopic analysis and minute technicality being the ultimate deciding factor. It the movement isn't enough to see in real time, is it worth fussing over? Would they get it wrong from time to time? Sure. But they get lots of nonrenewable things wrong at times, like most penalties.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
I don't remember ever asking that?
you didn't... it was part of this post...by Amish mafia.

I didn't say the rule was perfect. I'm saying no definition is going to be perfect. If you think your solution resolves the matter, I dont. I think it creates different and more problems.

Did you post that video? It was taken down by the NFL already.
 

ARPackFan

Knock it off with them negative waves
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
725
Reaction score
262
Location
Arkansas
Rules are already skewed in favor of the offense. I just don't like removing the part that requires the player maintain control to the ground.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
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 agree with Amish that your rule disregards the time aspect of a catch in football and think you are underestimating how crucial that is.

By your definition, anytime you see a receiver initially catch a ball with his feet on the ground and have it come sprawling lose upon a big, clean hit from a defender, the play is a fumble. Is that your intent? Do you really see that as an improvement from the current ambiguity?

You're not eliminating controversy, you're just changing what the controversy is about. I guarantee within a week or two of this new rule, you'd see a play in which a receiver may or may not have made a catch, it touched his hands, just exactly at the same time that a big corner reached in and swatted the ball out of his grip.

Now the officials have spent several minutes reviewing the play and are trying to determine whether this was a catch and fumble or incomplete pass.

The professional game happens way too fast to ignore the time and aftermath element that a catch requires.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,893
Location
Madison, WI
I think even Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth are hamstrung on the catch rule. I found it hard to believe tonight that it wasn't obvious that Ertz had become a runner and couldn't figure out why Al and Chris were so convinced that the call would be reversed.
 
OP
OP
BrokenArrow

BrokenArrow

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
1,352
I agree with Amish that your rule disregards the time aspect of a catch in football and think you are underestimating how crucial that is.

By your definition, anytime you see a receiver initially catch a ball with his feet on the ground and have it come sprawling lose upon a big, clean hit from a defender, the play is a fumble. Is that your intent?

If the ball comes loose after making a catch, it is already a fumble.
 

Firethorn1001

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
1,070
The problem with replay is they have taken it to Zapruder like analysis which is just killing them. It is supposed to be clear errors not "Oh.. look at frames 20-21, looks like the ball moved 1/16 of an inch back and to the left.
 

RRyder

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
1,775
Reaction score
183
I think even Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth are hamstrung on the catch rule. I found it hard to believe tonight that it wasn't obvious that Ertz had become a runner and couldn't figure out why Al and Chris were so convinced that the call would be reversed.

They just wanted to act like it was confusing. Alot of people like to act like its so confusing nowadays but it really isnt.

Really the way it's worded I can pretty easily see what's going to be ruled a catch
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,350
Reaction score
1,217
I think even Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth are hamstrung on the catch rule. I found it hard to believe tonight that it wasn't obvious that Ertz had become a runner and couldn't figure out why Al and Chris were so convinced that the call would be reversed.
I agree with your post, however there were a number of times in that game where Michaels made me wonder if he had been partaking in a few too many pre game cocktails. The way he was convinced that Cory Clement's TD was going to be reversed as well struck me as odd.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I agree with your post, however there were a number of times in that game where Michaels made me wonder if he had been partaking in a few too many pre game cocktails. The way he was convinced that Cory Clement's TD was going to be reversed as well struck me as odd.
I thought there was a chance Clement's TD was going to be reversed as well. I've certainly seen similar called non catches in the past. He didn't have the ball all that securely at first, and yes he was moving to secure it better, but therein lies the "catch". Did he really have control, or did he sense he was going to lose it and thus the need to move the ball to a more secure location? These things happen very quickly and almost innately, what isn't up for debate is the fact that after he moved it, his 2nd foot did come down out of bounds.

I thought Ertz's was clearly a TD, 3 steps, contact that took him down and broke the plan. He wasn't falling to the ground when he started his catch, he was running and continued to for 3 more steps until his leg was taken out by a defender.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
They just wanted to act like it was confusing. Alot of people like to act like its so confusing nowadays but it really isnt.

Really the way it's worded I can pretty easily see what's going to be ruled a catch

Well, that's one and counting. :)

Oops, another post snuck in while I was posting a reply to #47.
 
Last edited:

Members online

Latest posts

Top