Can the "catch rule" be fixed?

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

I don't think you and I differ that much on this, I'm just a little more of a perfectionist than you and it really isn't about calling a perfect game IMO, but it is more about trying to at least correct the calls that are very correctable. We both know that reviewing each and every play and what all 22 players on the field did during the play wouldn't be prudent and definitely would grind the game down to something resembling a chess match. But there is a happy medium between turning a blind eye and using today's technology to trying to expedite correct calls and I think the NFL is working towards that balance.

Maybe Captain or someone else knows these stats, but I would be curious to know what is the average # of reviews during a game and the average amount of time/game of those reviews? Besides the automatic ones after a TD.

 

[Mondio]

there definitely can be a balance maintained, and they have to be mindful of that. Game flow is affected with everything right now, TV timeouts, injury timeouts, measurement timeouts, timeout timeouts, replay timeouts, electrical failure timeouts, etc. I don't mind a couple reviews, or scoring reviewed but keep it quick. Fans need to be mindful of it too everytime they demand something be defined further, or things that should be available for review. Everytime you add something to the equation you get closer to the point of precipitation, critical mass, an unstoppable chemical reaction that once started you can't stop. You could add 10 kgs of something and it's the last .002mg's that put you past the point of no return.

This catch stuff is getting closer and closer. There is no verbiage to encompass what appears to be a catch, without including a bunch of others that would be pretty weak catches. and some "catches" will be excluded because they can't be maintained long enough. At some point, make a rule and play by it and at some point, some guy has to make the call and move on. we can analyze it to death and there will always be questionable calls. Replay has changed the game and the way it is officiated and it has changed calls. Good and bad and has missed plenty of their own. If just looking at "changed calls" i'm sure it would look extremely valuable. If considering all the other things it has influenced that would be much more difficult to assign a measurable value to, i'm not convinced it's actually better than just rolling with the calls on the field and replacing officials that don't keep a keen eye for the game from season to season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Maybe Captain or someone else knows these stats, but I would be curious to know what is the average # of reviews during a game and the average amount of time/game of those reviews? Besides the automatic ones after a TD.

Here's a list of the total number of challenges for every season since the league introduced it again back in 1999:

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

I don't have numbers for the 2017 season or the average time it takes for a review though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Thanks for finding that Stat Captain. If I did my math correctly, there are roughly 1.29 replays/game, with 37% of the original calls getting changed. The 37% is a bigger number than I would have imagined, but an important and significant one IMO. It is basically saying 1 out of 3, of the challenged calls, was originally called incorrectly. Makes me like instant replay even more.

 

[Half Empty]

However, those numbers don't tell us how many of the reversals were incorrect.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

However, those numbers don't tell us how many of the reversals were incorrect.

or...how many plays that didn't get reviewed should have been

 

[Mondio]

or...how many plays that didn't get reviewed should have been

or how many we sat afterwards and thought, hmmm, I'm surprised they didn't over turn that one, or i'm surprised they did overturn that one? Some plays are obvious, some are not. Some get reviewed, some don't. Some are more impactful than others. Call stands, call is confirmed, very different. how would they have been called without replay to fall back on? and does it affect the way an official watches every play in a game? There's a lot of immeasurable stuff going on to the game because of replay. People need to keep that in mind when they ask for more.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here's a list of the total number of challenges for every season since the league introduced it again back in 1999:

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

I don't have numbers for the 2017 season or the average time it takes for a review though.

It might be worth noting that every TD and turnover is reviewed in New York. Most are done likety split since there isn't a question on the call in most cases. You would not know that is happening if you didn't know the process.

Given these reviews, the refs are inclined to call a TD or a turnover when in doubt, initiating the review. If they choose not to call a TD or turnover when that is in fact the case, and the broadcast replays show they made a mistake. it's up to the coach to challenge, and if he's out of challenges or the opponent goes to quick snap before the evidence appears on the Jumbotron, the refs are exposed to influencing the game with a bad call.

 

[HardRightEdge]

There is a bit of good news on the officiating front. Ed Hochuli is retiring. That should produce more consistent officiating out of one crew, reduce interminable ref powwows on the field, and reduce annoying instances of "look at me" officiating.

Triplette is retiring as well. I can't say I've got a clear opinion on that.

 

[Poppa San]

Here's a list of the total number of challenges for every season since the league introduced it again back in 1999:

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

I don't have numbers for the 2017 season or the average time it takes for a review though.

WTF do these numbers mean? What is a review vs challenge? Only recently have scores and TOs been automatically reviewed.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Thanks for finding that Stat Captain. If I did my math correctly, there are roughly 1.29 replays/game, with 37% of the original calls getting changed.

Before looking it up I would guess the number of reviews per game to be higher. I don't think that 1.29 each contest is negatively affecting the flow of the game by any means.

WTF do these numbers mean? What is a review vs challenge? Only recently have scores and TOs been automatically reviewed.

The total of number of reviews includes the ones initiated by the officials in the booth during the last two minutes of each half as well as overtime while challenges solely factor in coaches throwing the red flag.

 

[PackerDNA]

Post #178;

Oh Captain, my Captain!
You are a site treasure my friend!
Thanks for all of your work.

 

[Poppa San]

The total of number of reviews includes the ones initiated by the officials in the booth during the last two minutes of each half as well as overtime while challenges solely factor in coaches throwing the red flag.

I was having trouble getting the reversals numbers to match with the challenges and didn't understand the total reviews portion.

 

[adambr2]

Since they're going to rewrite this rule yet again and likely just make it more convoluted, here would be my proposed solution:

"A receiver (or defender) completes a catch when he attains possession of the football with two feet or one knee and satisfies one of the following:"

A) Survives contact to the ground with possession, or

B) Completes an additional step.

Why not? Its simple and doesn't leave a lot to subjectivity. Both the Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson plays would have been ruled catches under this definition.

They don't like receivers losing the catch that looks like a catch on the eye test but has them losing possession as they continue forward. This eliminates that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Since they're going to rewrite this rule yet again and likely just make it more convoluted, here would be my proposed solution:

"A receiver (or defender) completes a catch when he attains possession of the football with two feet or one knee and satisfies one of the following:"

A) Survives contact to the ground with possession, or

B) Completes an additional step.

Why not? Its simple and doesn't leave a lot to subjectivity. Both the Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson plays would have been ruled catches under this definition.

They don't like receivers losing the catch that looks like a catch on the eye test but has them losing possession as they continue forward. This eliminates that.

I think that's pretty close to right and I believe the league will have none of it. The league doesn't care about a catch that looks like a catch but isn't. They care that fans care. Or maybe not. Maybe they like the controversy.

What they are chiefly interested in is having the refs on the field make the calls and crafting rules that permit the real-time naked eye to make them. They achieved their objective because the no-catch calls are pretty consistent in having the "establish as a runner" criteria. They are not ready to put control of the offciating in the "booth", which is actually the New York replay command center today, to honor the athleticism instead of concessions to real-time limitations.

They may tweek the rules, but they are not going to fix them coming from these perspectives.

 

[adambr2]

I think that's pretty close to right and I believe the league will have none of it. The league doesn't care about a catch that looks like a catch but isn't. They care that fans care. Or maybe not. Maybe they like the controversy.

What they are chiefly interested in is having the refs on the field make the calls and crafting rules that permit the real-time naked eye to make them. They achieved their objective because the no-catch calls are pretty consistent in having the "establish as a runner" criteria. They are not ready to put control of the offciating in the "booth", which is actually the New York replay command center today, to honor the athleticism instead of concessions to real-time limitations.

They may tweek the rules, but they are not going to fix them coming from these perspectives.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...and-subjective-language-for-critical-element/

I think you might be right, they may just love the controversy.

Look at this change. Must have one of:

A) A 3rd step (Like it. This was my suggestion).

B) Reaching or extending the ball for the line to gain. (Like it a little less, still some room for subjectivity here, but I could live with this).

C) The ability to do either.

Andddd they screw it all up. Lovely. Completely open to interpretation and will be interpreted differently by every official. Not only that, but this whole "We are going back to the 'indisputable' threshold for overturning instead of 'clear and obvious'.

Um, bull. The standard has always been there, you've just ignored it over time, and I've got no reason to think they won't continue to do so. The real standard for overturning a call is much closer to "We think so."

 

[PikeBadger]

I spoke to an NFL referee yesterday and he says that rules like tbe “catch Rule” creates the controversy it does because it looks completely different in slow motion than it does in normal speed and he is committed to following the letter of the rule as written.

 

[HardRightEdge]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...and-subjective-language-for-critical-element/

I think you might be right, they may just love the controversy.

Look at this change. Must have one of:

A) A 3rd step (Like it. This was my suggestion).

B) Reaching or extending the ball for the line to gain. (Like it a little less, still some room for subjectivity here, but I could live with this).

C) The ability to do either.

Andddd they screw it all up. Lovely. Completely open to interpretation and will be interpreted differently by every official. Not only that, but this whole "We are going back to the 'indisputable' threshold for overturning instead of 'clear and obvious'.

Um, bull. The standard has always been there, you've just ignored it over time, and I've got no reason to think they won't continue to do so. The real standard for overturning a call is much closer to "We think so."

At least they shortened the process that qualfies as a catch. A step in the right direction, pun intended.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I spoke to an NFL referee yesterday and he says that rules like tbe “catch Rule” creates the controversy it does because it looks completely different in slow motion than it does in normal speed and he is committed to following the letter of the rule as written.

Of course it looks different in slow motion. What he didn't say is if you see it real time, then see it in slow motion, then watch the replay in real time, the second real time instance looks different than the first.

I would expect all referees to follow the letter of the rule. They've done a pretty good job of that. And that rule was defective.

 

[Cornelius Weems]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. Stop freaking whining. If it doesn't survive the ground, then it's definitely not a catch. Seriously, does the defense need more working against them? Next it's going to be two-handed touch, no tackling allowed. This is NFL football people, there's a lot working against the defense already. IDC, there was a lot of offense in the SB, and changing the rule (like they did) will make it so only offense wins championships. Everyone is going to hope to have the ball last, and defensive stops will be few and far between. I will always treasure my signed AR picture, but those new defensive guys they signed will not mean much if any pass they defend gets reviewed, and called a catch no matter what they do.

 

[rmontro]

This is NFL football people, there's a lot working against the defense already. IDC, there was a lot of offense in the SB, and changing the rule (like they did) will make it so only offense wins championships. Everyone is going to hope to have the ball last, and defensive stops will be few and far between. I will always treasure my signed AR picture, but those new defensive guys they signed will not mean much if any pass they defend gets reviewed, and called a catch no matter what they do.

Yeah, it's a moot point now though, because they've already changed it, they've already given in. People get offended when something doesn't get called a catch, so they're trying to make it easier.

 

[OldSchool101]

Another thing that’s going to happen is a moderate increase in fumbles. Many examples I saw the receiver never got touched and the ball came loose outside the goal line.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Another thing that’s going to happen is a moderate increase in fumbles. Many examples I saw the receiver never got touched and the ball came loose outside the goal line.

Maybe stubling, bumbling and then diving and extending for a first down. I don't see a meaningful increase.

 

[Cornelius Weems]

Just heard about a new rule, any hit by a defender on a receiver, on ANY body part, by a helmet, results in a 15 yard penalty, and/or ejection. Two hand touch, just around the corner.

 

[rmontro]

A lot of people have talked about how the catches in the Super Bowl might have been called incomplete if they had occurred in the regular season.
I wouldn't necessarily like to have seen the Patriots win another Super Bowl, but it doesn't seem right to change the way the game is officiated once the big games come around.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ew-catch-rule-in-super-bowl-replay-decisions/