Can the "catch rule" be fixed?

[adambr2]

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

Yes, a LEGAL catch. Not just a possession + 2 feet catch which is what you're proposing for a legal catch. The receiver needs to either maintain possession to the ground or establish himself as a runner before he can fumble.

You're changing that completely with your definition and again, not allowing for a time element of a catch. A receiver can catch a pass with both feet on the ground, possess the ball for a tenth of a second, get blasted by a defender and the ball is jarred loose to the ground.

It's well-known that's an incomplete pass.

Under your definition, it's a catch and fumble.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not to throw more confusion into the discussion but I am waiting for a catch like the one Jared Cook made against Dallas and as he is coming down out of bounds, he collides with someone or something on the sideline that jars the ball loose.

Personally, I don't think there will ever be a perfect definition of the catch rule or at least one that 100% addresses every possibility. Determine the definition of "becoming a runner" or "football like move" and let instant replay decide the rest. If the call is so damn close that it takes 5 minutes of looking at film frame by frame to still not be 100% sure, stick with the call on the field.

 

[Half Empty]

Ask for a ruling from RRyder.

 

[swhitset]

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.

I agree with all of this. My comment was more about the way Michaels was talking about it. I too thought there was a chance the the TD would be reversed, but I also thought there was a good chance they would let the play stand. Michaels just suddenly seemed very personally invested in the decision before it was even made which caught my attention.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I agree with all of this. My comment was more about the way Michaels was talking about it. I too thought there was a chance the the TD would be reversed, but I also thought there was a good chance they would let the play stand. Michaels just suddenly seemed very personally invested in the decision before it was even made which caught my attention.

I think Michaels and especially Collinsworth were using their positions to kind of take a "shot" at the NFL in the fact that they need to clean this rule up. I could be wrong, but with all the controversial catch and no catches this year, it wouldn't surprise me that Collinsworth at least was being very poignant about his feeling on the current state of the rule.

 

[gbgary]

i thought both of the discussed calls were correct all along.

 

[RRyder]

Ask for a ruling from RRyder.

I'l take the shout out

I just don't see the confusion. With how it's worded it's pretty simple to call 9/10. Sometimes sure the wording of the rule doesn't pass the eye test but your going to run into that from time to time no matter how it's worded.

Really if they just define what a "football move" is better I don't think there's a whole lot to complain about

 

[Poppa San]

Change the rules so that the ball is always live until the ball possessor is tackled or out of bounds. No punts rolling to a stop as the ball is live, no incomplete pass as the ball is live as long as it is in bounds. Really changes the game but eliminates much controversy. Passes not possessed before going out of bounds revert to the spot the ball was released from. Kicks out of bounds revert to the point of the kick. Fumbles out of bounds revert to the last possession point in bounds; unless it is through the end zone at which the current rule stands.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Change the rules so that the ball is always live until the ball possessor is tackled or out of bounds. No punts rolling to a stop as the ball is live, no incomplete pass as the ball is live as long as it is in bounds. Really changes the game but eliminates much controversy. Passes not possessed before going out of bounds revert to the spot the ball was released from. Kicks out of bounds revert to the point of the kick. Fumbles out of bounds revert to the last possession point in bounds; unless it is through the end zone at which the current rule stands.

and I thought I was a smart *** LOL

That really would change the way the game is played.

If those were the rules.....I'm teaching my running backs how to fumble that ball 40 yards down the field and out of bounds. NFL Bowling anyone?

 

[adambr2]

I'l take the shout out

I just don't see the confusion. With how it's worded it's pretty simple to call 9/10. Sometimes sure the wording of the rule doesn't pass the eye test but your going to run into that from time to time no matter how it's worded.

Really if they just define what a "football move" is better I don't think there's a whole lot to complain about

'Football move' isn't even in the rules anymore. It just now says you must clearly establish yourself as a runner.

I agree with you that it really isn't that complicated. You must satisfy one of two things to complete a catch.

1) Clearly establish yourself as a runner, or
2) Maintain control to the ground.

Number 1 was satisfied on the Ertz TD last night which is why he didn't have to satisfy #2 on the dive to the goalline.

 

[swhitset]

and I thought I was a smart *** LOL

That really would change the way the game is played.

If those were the rules.....I'm teaching my running backs how to fumble that ball 40 yards down the field and out of bounds. NFL Bowling anyone?

yep... who cares if your wideout can catch... he just needs to be fast....

 

[BrokenArrow]

Yes, a LEGAL catch. Not just a possession + 2 feet catch which is what you're proposing for a legal catch. The receiver needs to either maintain possession to the ground or establish himself as a runner before he can fumble.

You're changing that completely with your definition and again, not allowing for a time element of a catch. A receiver can catch a pass with both feet on the ground, possess the ball for a tenth of a second, get blasted by a defender and the ball is jarred loose to the ground.

It's well-known that's an incomplete pass.

Under your definition, it's a catch and fumble.

And once again, you're throwing common sense out of the window. The "control" aspect has always been defined by the eyeball test. That would not change. It has NEVER been a 10th of a second of contact with the hands and that wouldn't start now.

As I said, my suggestion was just a starting point for discussion. No reason to dwell on it. Either way, the way catches are handled now has a lot of problems. The very fact that there was ever even any debate that Ertz caught the ball last night and they had to take 2 minutes to figure it out confirms it. All the problems started when they brought back instant replay and started micro-analyzing everything. As I said before, perhaps the best answer is to make catches non-review-able except to confirm that a receivers feet were both in bounds.

Another suggestion would be to continue to allow the entire process to be review-able, but it must be reviewed in real time. That would take a lot of nit-picking out of the reviews. Actually, the more I think of it, the more I'm liking this idea. All of the problems seem to arise when the cameras are zoomed way in and the video is slowed way down. The game isn't played in slow motion. Perhaps it shouldn't be scrutinized in slow motion.

 

[AmishMafia]

And once again, you're throwing common sense out of the window. The "control" aspect has always been defined by the eyeball test. That would not change. It has NEVER been a 10th of a second of contact with the hands and that wouldn't start now.

As I said, my suggestion was just a starting point for discussion. No reason to dwell on it. Either way, the way catches are handled now has a lot of problems. The very fact that there was ever even any debate that Ertz caught the ball last night and they had to take 2 minutes to figure it out confirms it. All the problems started when they brought back instant replay and started micro-analyzing everything. As I said before, perhaps the best answer is to not make catches review-able except to confirm that a receivers feet were both in bounds. A poster on a Redskins forum last year had a similar suggestion: continue to allow the entire process to be review-able, but they must be reviewed in real time. That would take a lot of nit-picking out of the reviews.

'Control' as dictated by the eyeball test.

You honestly think that is clear and consistent for every player, fan, and especially all the referees, and will reduce controversy?

 

[BrokenArrow]

'Control' as dictated by the eyeball test.

You honestly think that is clear and consistent for every player, fan, and especially all the referees, and will reduce controversy?

Same as it ever was.

 

[AmishMafia]

Same as it ever was.

And you may ask yourself, "How did we get here?"

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Another suggestion would be to continue to allow the entire process to be review-able, but it must be reviewed in real time. That would take a lot of nit-picking out of the reviews. Actually, the more I think of it, the more I'm liking this idea.

and only one camera angle, with bodies standing between the monitor and the viewer? You know simulate the conditions on the field. The problem isn't in the review process itself, its the definition of what constitutes a catch.

Isn't the whole point of instant replay to get the call correct, no matter what the call is on the field? To me doing what you suggest would be like saying "ok, we are going to trial, but only the facts as witnessed at the time are admissible evidence." Like it or not, replay when done correctly is about as close as you are going to get to getting a call correct. People need to stop worrying about the very few that are still controversial in trying to completely change a system that for the most part works.

If the goal posts were 5 feet tall and every FG and extra point had to be reviewed to see if the ball traveled between two invisible uprights, the problem wouldn't be in the review process, extend the damn uprights. In this case, clearly define the "catch rule" and stick with it.

As much as I didn't like seeing it take so long for Clement and Ertz's TD's to be reviewed, I will take that over always wondering "what if".

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And you may ask yourself, "How did we get here?"

And you may find yourself
Behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house
With a beautiful wife

 

[BrokenArrow]

And you may ask yourself, "How did we get here?"

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

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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

Have to admit, anytime I see your name, this song pops into my head, am I the only one?

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

 

[adambr2]

And once again, you're throwing common sense out of the window. The "control" aspect has always been defined by the eyeball test. That would not change. It has NEVER been a 10th of a second of contact with the hands and that wouldn't start now.

As I said, my suggestion was just a starting point for discussion. No reason to dwell on it.

And we're discussing it. If you're going to propose rule changes for discussion, no reason to get defensive when people point out the holes and flaws with it.

The 'control' aspect is not defined solely by the the eyeball test, you have to meet the criteria of becoming a runner or controlling to the ground. Part of the whole point of that is allowing control to be established for a long enough period of time to satisfy the definition of a catch.

A ball can actually be possessed for only 1/10th of a second at game speed in the NFL quite easily, so if that doesn't satisfy the eye test for you, where are you drawing the line? A receiver catches a ball in the middle of the field, the safety over the top takes an additional step and drills him and the ball comes out. What's your call?

See the problem here? You're actually removing the most black and white thing about the catch rule and now relying almost solely on the eye test. This isnt going to reduce controversy, it will multiply it...

 

[BrokenArrow]

A ball can actually be possessed for only 1/10th of a second at game speed in the NFL quite easily, so if that doesn't satisfy the eye test for you, where are you drawing the line? A receiver catches a ball in the middle of the field, the safety over the top takes an additional step and drills him and the ball comes out. What's your call?

The actual point here is that the rule and the way it is scrutinized on replay is currently a mess. It's gotten to a point where hardly anyone knows what a catch is anymore. You hear players say it all the time. Last night you heard the confusion in the commentary booth over whether or not Ertz caught the biggest TD of the year. Even though everyone who saw it KNOWS it was a catch, you had to wonder if it was going to be erased because of micro-analysis that might reveal some miniscule technicality. That's a problem! The fact is that Goodell has called on the rules committee to clarify and simplify the rules regarding catches. Now, given that those things are likely to be looked at, what is YOUR idea? If you're happy with the constant controversy we have over catches now, just say so and be done with it already. But if you think improvement can be made, what would you do?

Now you're right about one thing. Due to the nature of the game, there will never be a perfect rule. As such, there must be an acceptable margin of error. Can we agree on that? So how about this?

Leave the rules themselves as they are. Change the replay rules to state that any review of a catch can be replayed from any angle available but it must be judged in real time, keeping the "irrefutable evidence" requirement. If you can't see it clearly in real time, then any slight bobble that may have occurred should probably be considered insignificant. Right now, so many catches are overturned due to evidence that cannot be seen until the video is slowed to 20-25% or even slower.

Or perhaps limit the slow motion to no slower than 75% of real time. That would allow the catch to be treated with about the same acceptable margin of error as before the Bert Emanuel nonsense yet still allow obvious mistakes to be corrected. Since they are currently slowing the video down to a frame-by-frame review, they have done nothing but shrink the acceptable margin of error down to imperceptibly tiny slices of time. In its vain attempt at trying to make every single call perfect, the NFL has created a situation where multiple catches are painstakingly analyzed every single game because so few catches now fit within the margin of error they have establish. It is never going to be perfect, so why not increased that margin to what is perceivable on the field by limiting how much the replay can be slowed down and get the game moving along again like it used to? Exceptions could be made solely for the purpose of verifying that a player's feet were in bounds.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The actual point here is that the rule and the way it is scrutinized on replay is currently a mess. It's gotten to a point where hardly anyone knows what a catch is anymore. You hear players say it all the time. Last night you heard the confusion in the commentary booth over whether or not Ertz caught the biggest TD of the year. Even though everyone who saw it KNOWS it was a catch, you had to wonder if it was going to be erased because of micro-analysis that might reveal some miniscule technicality. That's a problem! The fact is that Goodell has called on the rules committee to clarify and simplify the rules regarding catches. Now, given that those things are likely to be looked at, what is YOUR idea? If you're happy with the constant controversy we have over catches now, just say so and be done with it already. But if you think improvement can be made, what would you do?

Now you're right about one thing. Due to the nature of the game, there will never be a perfect rule. As such, there must be an acceptable margin of error. Can we agree on that? So how about this?

Leave the rules themselves as they are. Change the replay rules to state that any review of a catch can be replayed from any angle available but it must be judged in real time, keeping the "irrefutable evidence" requirement. If you can't see it clearly in real time, then any slight bobble that may have occurred should probably be considered insignificant. Right now, so many catches are overturned due to evidence that cannot be seen until the video is slowed to 20-25% or even slower.

Or perhaps limit the slow motion to no slower than 75% of real time. That would allow the catch to be treated with about the same acceptable margin of error as before the Bert Emanuel nonsense yet still allow obvious mistakes to be corrected. Since they are currently slowing the video down to a frame-by-frame review, they have done nothing but shrink the acceptable margin of error down to imperceptibly tiny slices of time. In its vain attempt at trying to make every single call perfect, the NFL has created a situation where multiple catches are painstakingly analyzed every single game because so few catches now fit within the margin of error they have establish. It is never going to be perfect, so why not increased that margin to what is perceivable on the field by limiting how much the replay can be slowed down and get the game moving along again like it used to? Exceptions could be made solely for the purpose of verifying that a player's feet were in bounds.

So fix it by "blurring the lines"? This is what you effectively are doing by only allowing a review to be seen "no slower" than 75% of real time. On top of that, add the fact that any monkey with a recording device sitting at home can replay it frame by frame and probably get the call correct and when that call comes back wrong, because the officials couldn't review it frame by frame, what next? It's almost like you are saying "we admit we won't get the calls right, but we have an excuse, we tied one hand behind our backs".

If you are willing to make exceptions for players feet out of bounds and do frame by frame for that, aren't you saying that this is a better way to get a call correct? After all, review is to get the call correct, why would you want to throw up obstacles in doing that? Figure out and clearly define the parameters of what makes a call correct and make sure those parameters are being met by using the latest and best technology that the NFL can pay for, to get it correct.

Of course those opposed to replay at all or just letting the refs call them as they see them, then get rid of replay all together, but don't make it an even worse process by weakening the technology used. Remember, if the refs are the sole judge, they are still going to call them based on what the rules say or at least what they see.

 

[Poppa San]

I actually think some of the WTF interpretations come about from justifying a botched call. Tuck rule didn't exist until it was called. If Calvin Johnson's noncatch was called a TD, there'd be no through contact with the ground addendum to what a catch is.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yes. Force refs to watch replays at half-speed. Stop this frame-by-frame replay analysis where the ball can jiggle for 1/60th of a second. Watch half speed and suddenly we aren't analyzing everything as minutely and refs will STILL be able to fix incorrect calls.

 

[Mondio]

watch it at whatever speed you want, it won't "fix" anything. Someone somewhere is going to have a different interpretation of what they saw. There are literally 50 years at least of data on this. Week after week, game after game, era after era, rule fix after rule fix, the controversy isn't going away. It isn't going to be "fixed". It isn't going to be "better". Change what you want, you will only make it different. I say, make the ****ing rules and play by them. I'm in favor of simple, simple works. There will still be controversy, but then we'll at least all know the rules. Myself, i'm in favor of what's called on the field is called on the field. mistakes will happen, but officiating will get better. I hate this notion of some guy not even involved with the game on the field sitting somewhere else making calls. The entire game is about the human element. If you're not there, you don't know. and even with that, it's still his interpretation and there's a good chance it will be different from many others. add more eyeballs, add more interpretations. Doesn't fix anything