Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Can the "catch rule" be fixed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 763573"><p>The interesting thing about this rule is the bolded "or" in the above quoted passage. It is not an "and".</p><p></p><p>Here's the James no-catch:</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]xHGfsoORqZM[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>Did James "become a runner", a pre-condition for all catches following two-feet-down? Was James <strong>"capable</strong> of warding off or avoiding" a tackle, <strong>capable</strong> of "taking additional steps" or "<strong>capable" </strong>of turning upfield Probably not. He was diving for the ball. Was he <strong><em>capable</em></strong> of tucking the ball? Sure looks like it, but "capability" is a judgement call. In the slow-mo at around 0:50 he does a half tuck with clear control then extends. According to the letter of the rule, "catch" would be the most reasonable call. But the interpretation appears to be not "capable" of tucking but <strong>actually</strong> tucking the ball.</p><p></p><p>Despite the recent change to the rule wording, the call on James is pretty consistent with the 2014 Bryant call against the Packers, where he's got a stumbling, diving semi-tuck:</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]1khK6is-Bfs[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>Compare to the Ertz play ruled a catch:</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]6cqhUvawoL0[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>Despite it being an "or", Ertz happened to satisfy all of the criteria in fact and not just "capability", including turning upfield, taking 3 steps before diving, warding off a tackler and making a tuck to the armpit before extending.</p><p></p><p>Here are a few of my takeaways:</p><p></p><p>1) The game announcers and analysts don't help matters by putting the cart in front of the horse when I listen to the audio in the above clips. They are preoccupied with whether the receiver maintained control to the ground without analyzing first the precondition that might make that irrelevant: did the receiver become a runner with one of the "ors" that go into that?</p><p></p><p>2) "Capability" as opposed to "actuality" is a guess work. Once upon a time the rules included stuff involving "intent", as though the ref should be a mind reader. Smartly, that word no longer exists in the rules. Intent cannot be established; defenders are now held accountable for what they actually do regardless of what might be floating around in their heads that nobody can actually know. "Capability" is similarly flawed. At the very least that word needs to be addressed. How about "actually" accomplishing the things now ruled as "capabilities"? That has other problems, but at least explaining the application of the rule would be clearer.</p><p></p><p>3) Whether the league is following the letter of their rule, which they evidently do not with respect to the "or" and the "capabilities" in the rule, the ultimate question is whether the calls accurately respect the athleticism of the players. I would say they do not. It's why this is such a debate. Regardless of what the rule says, did Bryant or James or Ertz make a football catch to the studied eye? I would say yes. They established control of the ball in the field of play. That should be enough regardless of what happens next.</p><p></p><p>4) The rule is constructed to make it easier on the refs. The rule is constructed to elongate the process of the catch with all of the "ors" in the criteria to make it easier to make the call on the field. That's not working.</p><p></p><p>5) The rule is interpreted more as a preponderance of the evidence than a strict application of the "or". Ertz looks a lot more like a catch than James. Bryant looks more like James than Ertz. I would expect the league has compiled tape of plays deemed "catch" vs. those deemed "non-catch" for referee guidance. There's a lot eye test in all of this.</p><p></p><p>6) Can the issue be satisfactorily resolved for all knowledgeable parties concerned? The answer is "no". Ultimately, regardless of what criteria one uses, judging whether a catch is good or bad is not dissimilar to the question of whether a painting is good or bad. There will be disagreements. In the end, "catch" is a term of art.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 763573"] The interesting thing about this rule is the bolded "or" in the above quoted passage. It is not an "and". Here's the James no-catch: [MEDIA=youtube]xHGfsoORqZM[/MEDIA] Did James "become a runner", a pre-condition for all catches following two-feet-down? Was James [B]"capable[/B] of warding off or avoiding" a tackle, [B]capable[/B] of "taking additional steps" or "[B]capable" [/B]of turning upfield Probably not. He was diving for the ball. Was he [B][I]capable[/I][/B] of tucking the ball? Sure looks like it, but "capability" is a judgement call. In the slow-mo at around 0:50 he does a half tuck with clear control then extends. According to the letter of the rule, "catch" would be the most reasonable call. But the interpretation appears to be not "capable" of tucking but [B]actually[/B] tucking the ball. Despite the recent change to the rule wording, the call on James is pretty consistent with the 2014 Bryant call against the Packers, where he's got a stumbling, diving semi-tuck: [MEDIA=youtube]1khK6is-Bfs[/MEDIA] Compare to the Ertz play ruled a catch: [MEDIA=youtube]6cqhUvawoL0[/MEDIA] Despite it being an "or", Ertz happened to satisfy all of the criteria in fact and not just "capability", including turning upfield, taking 3 steps before diving, warding off a tackler and making a tuck to the armpit before extending. Here are a few of my takeaways: 1) The game announcers and analysts don't help matters by putting the cart in front of the horse when I listen to the audio in the above clips. They are preoccupied with whether the receiver maintained control to the ground without analyzing first the precondition that might make that irrelevant: did the receiver become a runner with one of the "ors" that go into that? 2) "Capability" as opposed to "actuality" is a guess work. Once upon a time the rules included stuff involving "intent", as though the ref should be a mind reader. Smartly, that word no longer exists in the rules. Intent cannot be established; defenders are now held accountable for what they actually do regardless of what might be floating around in their heads that nobody can actually know. "Capability" is similarly flawed. At the very least that word needs to be addressed. How about "actually" accomplishing the things now ruled as "capabilities"? That has other problems, but at least explaining the application of the rule would be clearer. 3) Whether the league is following the letter of their rule, which they evidently do not with respect to the "or" and the "capabilities" in the rule, the ultimate question is whether the calls accurately respect the athleticism of the players. I would say they do not. It's why this is such a debate. Regardless of what the rule says, did Bryant or James or Ertz make a football catch to the studied eye? I would say yes. They established control of the ball in the field of play. That should be enough regardless of what happens next. 4) The rule is constructed to make it easier on the refs. The rule is constructed to elongate the process of the catch with all of the "ors" in the criteria to make it easier to make the call on the field. That's not working. 5) The rule is interpreted more as a preponderance of the evidence than a strict application of the "or". Ertz looks a lot more like a catch than James. Bryant looks more like James than Ertz. I would expect the league has compiled tape of plays deemed "catch" vs. those deemed "non-catch" for referee guidance. There's a lot eye test in all of this. 6) Can the issue be satisfactorily resolved for all knowledgeable parties concerned? The answer is "no". Ultimately, regardless of what criteria one uses, judging whether a catch is good or bad is not dissimilar to the question of whether a painting is good or bad. There will be disagreements. In the end, "catch" is a term of art. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
2025 NFL Schedule Release
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 12:46 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
NFC North Predictions
Latest: gopkrs
Today at 12:32 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Packers Trade Candidates
Latest: Heyjoe4
Yesterday at 2:42 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers Push to Ban the **** Push
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 1:03 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Da Bears new head coach!!!!!
Latest: weeds
Thursday at 7:27 PM
NFL Discussions
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Can the "catch rule" be fixed?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
