Can the "catch rule" be fixed?

[HardRightEdge]

As an aside, they need to address the defective aspects of the rule that relate to sideline and end line catches. With those catches the receiver is not capable of establishing himself as runner since he's out of the field of play.

I mentioned a while back a catch Thielen made in the second Vikes game. It was a short out for a first down where Thielen got two feet down with control and immediately had the ball slapped out of his hands as he stepped out of bounds. Had this happened in the field of play, the correct call would be an incompletion, yet nobody questioned it. The rule is a muddle.

I read a note recently that the NFL is reviewing the "going to the ground" element of the rule. That's not the problem. The problem is the "capable of establishing as a runner" element of the rule.

 

[HardRightEdge]

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.

Well, I ask the question of those who have actually been called upon to catch footballs, irrespective of the rule, did Jesse James catch the football? Sure he did. But not according the rule as written. Ultimately, that is unsatisfying.

I don't agree with your premise. If there are 100 confusing "become a runner" calls then there would be 100 "control" calls instead. At least the latter respects the athletic act.

 

[HardRightEdge]

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!

I'm not sure this would be ruled incomplete today. The receiver crossed the goal line with control, then went to the ground with control, then the defender contacted him, then the ball came loose. The interpretation might be the receiver was down by contact with control before the defender knocked the ball loose.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The only way that would work is if the technology was rolled back. The "instant replay" camera was first introduced in 1963. Perhaps the NFL could roll back the clock and mandate the networks not show replays at all.

I don't think instant replay is ever going away and the one big reason for that is technology. Back in 1963, technology didn't allow refs, fans, media, etc to scrutinize every call for correctness. With the advent of technology, not only was the NFL able to start seeing every play frame by frame at multiple angles, but so was the media and thus the fans. Sure, the NFL could say "no more replay, doesn't matter if they missed the call on the field, the call stands as is". Back in 1963, that wouldn't have presented much of an issue, but today, the media and the fans would use modern technology to blast the NFL and its officiating for all the blown calls.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't think instant replay is ever going away and the one big reason for that is technology. Back in 1963, technology didn't allow refs, fans, media, etc to scrutinize every call for correctness. With the advent of technology, not only was the NFL able to start seeing every play frame by frame at multiple angles, but so was the media and thus the fans. Sure, the NFL could say "no more replay, doesn't matter if they missed the call on the field, the call stands as is". Back in 1963, that wouldn't have presented much of an issue, but today, the media and the fans would use modern technology to blast the NFL and its officiating for all the blown calls.

Of course.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Fans like less an obvious blown call revealed upon replay. I guess they forgot that.

Frankly, as illustrated above, I don't have much of a problem with the Bryant/James/Ertz replay determinations. The problem is with the "establishing as a runner" element of the rules. If the TV commentators and the fans don't understand it's consistent interpretation and application upon replay, that's no reason for complaint.

The initial call on the James catch was a TD. Had that stood, it would have been the wrong call. You might be happy letting the wrong call determine a season. I am not.

winner winner chicken dinner.

I've said this many times, when you have the ability to get it right with the highest percentage of accuracy, you do it. This isn't 2 guys playing horseshoes out in the back yard for bragging rights. This is a multi billion dollar business, where one play, one blown call can cost a team a season, as well as millions of dollars.

 

[AmishMafia]

Well, I ask the question of those who have actually been called upon to catch footballs, irrespective of the rule, did Jesse James catch the football? Sure he did. But not according the rule as written. Ultimately, that is unsatisfying.

I don't agree with your premise. If there are 100 confusing "become a runner" calls then there would be 100 "control" calls instead. At least the latter respects the athletic act.

Because there are so many clamoring for a rule change, there will be one. If it is a slight tweak, not much will change. If it is a major shift as some suggest, it will only last a few years, get tweaked a few times and ultimately fans will be upset once again. It is a very difficult thing to define. And if you go with "does it feel like a catch?" then you have lost all continuity from one ref to the next. I can see where that would be a much bigger disaster. Even in the same game depending on which ref is closest, there would be the lack of consistency.



Maybe there is a way to better and more clearly define a catch. I just have not heard of it. Fans just need to accept the limitations of human referees and the situation for what it is. Every fan sees the bad calls working against them and ignores the bad ones in their favor. You just have to hope that they even out in the long run. Except if you are the Raiders. They always get screwed.

 

[Mondio]

Fans like less an obvious blown call revealed upon replay. I guess they forgot that.

Frankly, as illustrated above, I don't have much of a problem with the Bryant/James/Ertz replay determinations. The problem is with the "establishing as a runner" element of the rules. If the TV commentators and the fans don't understand it's consistent interpretation and application upon replay, that's no reason for complaint.

The initial call on the James catch was a TD. Had that stood, it would have been the wrong call. You might be happy letting the wrong call determine a season. I am not.

A blown call never determines a season, or they'd only have one play per year. Quit being so melodramatic. We could go they the history of the NFL and retroactively apply all sorts of rules and change all sorts of things.

Reply has NOT gotten rid of controversy and has added a level of microanalysis that is turning some people away. Turns catches into incompletions, turns incompletions into fumbles and Touchdowns into turnovers and depending on the era and the rules they might be called differently.

And to be fair, how many plays call as stands because there isn't enough to over turn it? And they were made by the official with replay in mind, rather than just calling it like they see it. There are plays like that every week that just go on and they change games too because officials are relying on replay to get it right, rather than calling what they see.

At some point someone makes a call and we move on. Replay will never be perfect and then stuff they add to it, the closer we get to fans reaching the point they just turn it off. The rules will never be applied equally enough or interpreted the same from game to game, especially with more layers of variables before someone finally makes a decision and we move on.

 

[Mondio]

winner winner chicken dinner.

I've said this many times, when you have the ability to get it right with the highest percentage of accuracy, you do it. This isn't 2 guys playing horseshoes out in the back yard for bragging rights. This is a multi billion dollar business, where one play, one blown call can cost a team a season, as well as millions of dollars.

So you're an advocate tonopening up the entire game to replay? Every play, every call, every non call? If not, why not? On more than one occasion a screaming pass rusher has been tackled around the neck and no flag is thrown and they toss a game changing touchdown on 4th and 20? Calls are missed all game long and will be. I don't even want to imagine what allowing that would do to the game.

If you're not for that, why not? Youbsaidnif they have the ability to get it right with the highest degree of accuracy, why not all of them?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So you're an advocate tonopening up the entire game to replay? Every play, every call, every non call? If not, why not? On more than one occasion a screaming pass rusher has been tackled around the neck and no flag is thrown and they toss a game changing touchdown on 4th and 20? Calls are missed all game long and will be. I don't even want to imagine what allowing that would do to the game.

If you're not for that, why not? Youbsaidnif they have the ability to get it right with the highest degree of accuracy, why not all of them?

So you are saying it should be "all or nothing"?

No, I am not an advocate to opening every single play up to instant replay review, since right now the whole game is technically under review....by the referees and the coaches ability to challenge certain calls. I really have no issue with the way the current system of instant replay works now, I think the issue is more with the interpretation of things like the catch rule.

Now if you told me of a system where one of the referees was in the booth and could quickly buzz down and correct a blatantly missed call, I would be all for it. Why would having another set of eyes on the field scare you? There are already what.... 7 officials, as well as the coaches with red challenge flags trying to spot the calls.

There are always going to be missed calls and questionable judgement calls, but increasing the chances of getting as many calls correct is a lot better than just throwing your hands up and saying "play the damn game and let the original call stand no matter what".

 

[Mondio]

So you are saying it should be "all or nothing"?

No, I am not an advocate to opening every single play up to instant replay review, since right now the whole game is technically under review....by the referees and the coaches ability to challenge certain calls. I really have no issue with the way the current system of instant replay works now, I think the issue is more with the interpretation of things like the catch rule.

Now if you told me of a system where one of the referees was in the booth and could quickly buzz down and correct a blatantly missed call, I would be all for it. Why would having another set of eyes on the field scare you? There are already what.... 7 officials, as well as the coaches with red challenge flags trying to spot the calls.

There are always going to be missed calls and questionable judgement calls, but increasing the chances of getting as many calls correct is a lot better than just throwing your hands up and saying "play the damn game and let the original call stand no matter what".

I'm not afraid, it may just mean I don't watch someday. It's not something that is happening tomorrow, so i'm not going to act like it is. I was just making a point. At some point, no matter how you want to write the rules, interpret the rules, replay the rules, how many eyes you want to see the same play, how many angles or how much time they have to look, at some point it comes down to"make the call and move on" .

The game existed for a long time without it. They missed some calls and people got mad, so they instituted replay. People still missed calls, so they changed it. People still missed calls but it was no affecting how people watched it, so they got rid of it. Then they brought it back with changes. They get some right, they get some wrong. and many more are influenced in ways we never even realize thru officiating erring on the side of caution and letting replay figure it out. Only replay doesn't and the call stands when it probably wouldn't have before. or don't those plays matter?

I don't think any of this stuff makes our game better, i really don't. It's made it different. They can tweak the rules all they want on the catch. more criteria, more interpretations, more micro analysis, more controversy. and if the goal is to get the calls correct, why not all of them? why just certain ones? I'm guessing it's because everybody can see that it would be detrimental to the game to allow it all to be reviewed. We had pretty good officiating for decades in this league, replay hasn't made the game better, just different. Tweak the catch rules. Let me know when they get rid of the controversy. and at the end of the day, add or subtract as many layers of replay and rules as you'd like. They'll still get some right and they'll still get some "wrong" and still someone is going to have the make the call and move on. which was what my point was.

 

[swhitset]

As an aside, they need to address the defective aspects of the rule that relate to sideline and end line catches. With those catches the receiver is not capable of establishing himself as runner since he's out of the field of play.

I mentioned a while back a catch Thielen made in the second Vikes game. It was a short out for a first down where Thielen got two feet down with control and immediately had the ball slapped out of his hands as he stepped out of bounds. Had this happened in the field of play, the correct call would be an incompletion, yet nobody questioned it. The rule is a muddle.

I read a note recently that the NFL is reviewing the "going to the ground" element of the rule. That's not the problem. The problem is the "capable of establishing as a runner" element of the rule.

I agree that has always been one of my biggest issues with the rule... no way to reconcile the rules where a catch is made on the sideline or in the end zone.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think there is a good way to not treat the sidelines and goal lines with different rules. Jordy's was the same, catch in the endzone, possession, 2 feet down and then slapped away. He had clearly "caught" it to everyone watching, yet it was slapped away pretty quickly. How do you make that a catch without opening up a whole lot of non-catches to being interpreted as a catch in other parts of the field? I have not seen that verbiage

 

[swhitset]

I'm not afraid, it may just mean I don't watch someday. It's not something that is happening tomorrow, so i'm not going to act like it is. I was just making a point. At some point, no matter how you want to write the rules, interpret the rules, replay the rules, how many eyes you want to see the same play, how many angles or how much time they have to look, at some point it comes down to"make the call and move on" .

The game existed for a long time without it. They missed some calls and people got mad, so they instituted replay. People still missed calls, so they changed it. People still missed calls but it was no affecting how people watched it, so they got rid of it. Then they brought it back with changes. They get some right, they get some wrong. and many more are influenced in ways we never even realize thru officiating erring on the side of caution and letting replay figure it out. Only replay doesn't and the call stands when it probably wouldn't have before. or don't those plays matter?

I don't think any of this stuff makes our game better, i really don't. It's made it different. They can tweak the rules all they want on the catch. more criteria, more interpretations, more micro analysis, more controversy. and if the goal is to get the calls correct, why not all of them? why just certain ones? I'm guessing it's because everybody can see that it would be detrimental to the game to allow it all to be reviewed. We had pretty good officiating for decades in this league, replay hasn't made the game better, just different. Tweak the catch rules. Let me know when they get rid of the controversy. and at the end of the day, add or subtract as many layers of replay and rules as you'd like. They'll still get some right and they'll still get some "wrong" and still someone is going to have the make the call and move on. which was what my point was.

I think this is a bit disingenuous... I do not accept the statement that replay has not made the game better. No it has not made it perfect, but I for one am happier when the correct call is made. Replay has not made this foolproof, but I do think more calls are made correctly now than in the past.

 

[Mondio]

I think this is a bit disingenuous... I do not accept the statement that replay has not made the game better. No it has not made it perfect, but I for one am happier when the correct call is made. Replay has not made this foolproof, but I do think more calls are made correctly now than in the past.

i would agree, to a degree. But has it made the game "better"? Which is completely subjective and will never be agreed upon, but i don't think it really has. Afterall, we're going on season # how many where we still cant' define a catch. We can thank replay for that. Is the game better for it? I don't think so, but i'm sure others do. That's just one example. If we're looking strictly at getting a couple plays called correctly per game that may not have been in the past, i'm sure it's gets a few more of them correct than it used to. But the game is so much more than just a couple calls. and i do think there are other unintended consequences of replay that people never even associate.

 

[swhitset]

i would agree, to a degree. But has it made the game "better"? Which is completely subjective and will never be agreed upon, but i don't think it really has. Afterall, we're going on season # how many where we still cant' define a catch. We can thank replay for that. Is the game better for it? I don't think so, but i'm sure others do. That's just one example. If we're looking strictly at getting a couple plays called correctly per game that may not have been in the past, i'm sure it's gets a few more of them correct than it used to. But the game is so much more than just a couple calls. and i do think there are other unintended consequences of replay that people never even associate.

While it's true that "better" is a subjective term, I am always more able to accept an outcome when I feel like the correct call was made. I don't think I will ever get over the Jerry Rice non fumble. That call definitely changed a season. It can work both ways of course, but usually when a call goes against my team... I can accept it when I think it was the correct call.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Afterall, we're going on season # how many where we still cant' define a catch. We can thank replay for that.

How do we thank replay for not being able to define a catch? With or without replay, you still have to define a catch with rules and words. Now you can thank replay for making it easier or sometimes more complicated to actually get the call correct, but in no way has replay "defined" what constitutes what a catch is or isn't.

If replay did not exist, we would still have the same questions about what constitutes a catch, there just wouldn't be any way to fix a call when the officials did not see the play clearly enough.

 

[Mondio]

I get that, do you think there was controversy about what is or isn't a catch in 1988 the way there is in 2018? Replay has absolutely changed the way they defined the catch or attempt to. Everyone thinks they need to get it right, because now it can be reviewed. The problem is, you'll never be able to define them in a way that is consistent. There will always be a play that looks like a catch, but isnt according to rules. And if they get rid of that, then and include those then lots of things that weren't catches, now will be called catches. Unless of course you want to allow for a referees discretion, which brings us right back to where we started.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Reply has NOT gotten rid of controversy....

I would not expect it to. The more input to a decision the more difficult it may become. The fact TV commentators don't understand the rules and lead fans down the wrong path sure doesn't help.

Getting rid of controversy is not what I'd be looking for, though that may be the NFL's aim. That would be a mistake. I'm looking for better rules that respect the athleticism, address situations not currently addressed or consistently applied, such as sideline and endline, and use more replay if necessary to get the calls right.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't think instant replay is ever going away and the one big reason for that is technology. Back in 1963, technology didn't allow refs, fans, media, etc to scrutinize every call for correctness. With the advent of technology, not only was the NFL able to start seeing every play frame by frame at multiple angles, but so was the media and thus the fans. Sure, the NFL could say "no more replay, doesn't matter if they missed the call on the field, the call stands as is". Back in 1963, that wouldn't have presented much of an issue, but today, the media and the fans would use modern technology to blast the NFL and its officiating for all the blown calls.

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I get that, do you think there was controversy about what is or isn't a catch in 1988 the way there is in 2018? Replay has absolutely changed the way they defined the catch or attempt to. Everyone thinks they need to get it right, because now it can be reviewed. The problem is, you'll never be able to define them in a way that is consistent. There will always be a play that looks like a catch, but isnt according to rules. And if they get rid of that, then and include those then lots of things that weren't catches, now will be called catches. Unless of course you want to allow for a referees discretion, which brings us right back to where we started.

Yup they call it...."Progress" and it has occured in pretty much every walk of life. Whether its technology or just a way of thinking, times change and in this case, I think have gotten better with replay. Go back and watch the original Star Wars movie. That was pretty cool when it was first released, but now the special effects really aren't that special. Before squad cars were equipped with dash cams, what happened at a scene was determined by everyone's testimony and memory of the events. Races were declared ties because they were "too close to call".

Instant replay merely shows just how close some calls can be in football and just how much you have to rely on well defined rules and the correct interpretation of them by the people enforcing them, replay just aids in this process. I almost get the impression that you are less worried about getting a call right or wrong and it's mainly because you just don't like technology being a factor in determining it and the time it sometimes takes in doing so?

 

[AmishMafia]

I would not expect it to. The more input to a decision the more difficult it may become. The fact TV commentators don't understand the rules and lead fans down the wrong path sure doesn't help.

Excellent point! Collinsworth appeared to me to be trying to create controversy.

Getting rid of controversy is not what I'd be looking for, though that may be the NFL's aim. That would be a mistake. I'm looking for better rules that respect the athleticism, address situations not currently addressed or consistently applied, such as sideline and endline, and use more replay if necessary to get the calls right.

It's a tough balance. I want calls to be more accurate but not at the expense of interrupting the flow of the game.

I always thought there should be a couple guys in the booth constantly watching. When a close/confusing play happens the refs huddle anyway for 15 seconds. Might just as well have Larry and curly in the booth watching 8 replay camera 2 or 3 times and radio their thouhts to Moe on the field who then weighs their input and makes the call. Moe can ask em specifics like "Did his right foot touch?"

 

[HardRightEdge]

Excellent point! Collinsworth appeared to me to be trying to create controversy.

Collinsworth is sometime insightful and often off in left field. Ex-wide receivers...figures.

I always thought there should be a couple guys in the booth constantly watching. When a close/confusing play happens the refs huddle anyway for 15 seconds. Might just as well have Larry and curly in the booth watching 8 replay camera 2 or 3 times and radio their thouhts to Moe on the field who then weighs their input and makes the call. Moe can ask em specifics like "Did his right foot touch?"

Not a bad idea. Larry and Curley are already doing that in New York, not the booth. They're watching all the plays and reviewing questionable calls in the event of a challenge. Right now the final call is done by the referee on the field. Telling the ref a foot is down or not would be verboten. In the NFL, not giving final authority to the refs on the field would lead to chaos, chaos I tell you! What a bunch of crap.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Under the current rules, offensive PI can be called from the moment the ball is snapped until the play is over and often involves picks or shoving before the ball is even in the air, so it would be very difficult to determine how many of those actually prevented an interception. I was talking about offensive PI when the defender has a clear shot at catching the ball, but is interfered with, thus preventing the pic k and only resulting in a 10 yard penalty.

There were a total of 117 offensive pass interference penalties called last season. I guess on most of those plays the defensive back wasn't anywhere close to intercepting the ball. Therefore I believe it to be a non-issue.

 

[Mondio]

Yup they call it...."Progress" and it has occured in pretty much every walk of life. Whether its technology or just a way of thinking, times change and in this case, I think have gotten better with replay. Go back and watch the original Star Wars movie. That was pretty cool when it was first released, but now the special effects really aren't that special. Before squad cars were equipped with dash cams, what happened at a scene was determined by everyone's testimony and memory of the events. Races were declared ties because they were "too close to call".

Instant replay merely shows just how close some calls can be in football and just how much you have to rely on well defined rules and the correct interpretation of them by the people enforcing them, replay just aids in this process. I almost get the impression that you are less worried about getting a call right or wrong and it's mainly because you just don't like technology being a factor in determining it and the time it sometimes takes in doing so?

You don't get my point at all.

And as cheesy as Star Wars was in the late 70's, that movie was 100x's the movie that kicked off the next trilogy.

Photo finishes do not even apply to most cases other than the goal line and that's assuming there isn't obstructed sight, which is what plagues all sorts of football plays.

I wish they'd get the calls all right, I also realize they never will. So where do we draw the line? If you only care about 2 plays per game, why not 10? Or 15?

I don't think it's killing the game. Yet. There will come a time where it is taking too much away from the game and with all the other stuff surrounding the game, I don't think it's far off.

It would work better if rules were more black and white, but football is not a black and white sport. We have Pacific Islanders and the occasional Native American even these days. They don't call holding by the rule, PI by the rule and thankfully have left that more up to the discretion of the official on the field than the letter of the rule recently.

But why allow the spot to be challenged when forward progress is subjective, but not allow it on PI calls also subjective? I don't want more, but in the spirit of getting it right, why not? anyway, I'm not pushing for no replay, though I wouldn't care if they got rid of it. and all things considered, I'm not sure this "progress" has actually made the game better. I think we have far too much emphasis on rules and writing them. If catches 30 years ago aren't catches 15 years later, but are again in 2013, but then maybe will be or maybe won't be 2018 going forward, better?

and my original point, at some point there is someone that makes a call and we move on. How many layers do you want to add before that is done and how much time do you want to give it? and if your premise is to "get it right", then why not all plays be subject to replay? why only certain plays? The game is dangerously close to being too chunked up and the flow has definitely been changed. Not just by replay, but it plays its part.