Fixing the 'catch' rule

[adambr2]

Isn't it funny how through many years of football, up until 5-10 years or so we never really debated what a catch was, and now we do it every year?

How can this rule finally be rewriten to where it both makes sense and is easy to interpret? Thoughts?

My suggestion off the top of my head:

'Possession is complete when either of the following take place after a catch: 1) Receiver gets 2 feet down plus one additional step while in field of play 2) If receiver is going to the ground or out of bounds while making the catch and is unable to take an additional step, receiver must maintain control of ball as they hit the ground or are hit by a defender. '

Receiver taking additional steps as they make the catch falling to the ground would constitute a 3rd step and therefore possession. Dez Bryant non-catch therefore would be interpreted as a catch.

 

[Poppa San]

My pair of Lincolns: if you are not contacted by a defender and going to the ground, maintain control through ground contact. Otherwise it is control and 2 feet down.

 

[Mondio]

If it looks like a catch and they call it a catch it's a catch. Get rid of all replay

 

[adambr2]

My pair of Lincolns: if you are not contacted by a defender and going to the ground, maintain control through ground contact. Otherwise it is control and 2 feet down.

My only problem with this is that it is very easy to have control + 2 feet for a split second. If that's the rule, any catch without saying further move where a defender makes immediate contact and jars the ball lose would have to be ruled a fumble.

 

[adambr2]

If it looks like a catch and they call it a catch it's a catch. Get rid of all replay

No thanks. Having Jerry Rice flashbacks. The replay system in place isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing IMO. I don't think current NFL officiating is nearly competent enough not to have some checks in place.

 

[Mondio]

No thanks. Having Jerry Rice flashbacks. The replay system in place isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing IMO. I don't think current NFL officiating is nearly competent enough not to have some checks in place.

Because replay has gotten rid of the controversy? I used to think that and now everything is hyper scrutinized, games are disrupted and they still don't get them all right. In the end I think it just degrades the overall officiating because they come to depend on replay rather than what they see. In 10 years I think it will have much bigger negative impacts on officiating than if all replay was just tossed.

 

[adambr2]

Because replay has gotten rid of the controversy? I used to think that and now everything is hyper scrutinized, games are disrupted and they still don't get them all right. In the end I think it just degrades the overall officiating because they come to depend on replay rather than what they see. In 10 years I think it will have much bigger negative impacts on officiating than if all replay was just tossed.

Replay isn't going anywhere. It's expanding in every sport, and as long as they have the technology available to quickly correct a bad call, it seems silly to me not to use it.

I think most officials will tell you that they prefer to have replay. I can't imagine any of them want the burden of an awful season changing mistake on their part that can't be corrected. Is there still controversy? Of course, and the NFL likes it that way. It's part of their entertainment product.

I agree that the action is hyper scrutinized nowadays, but in this era of the HD television experience, it isn't going anywhere. They'll add even more cameras and more angles, not take them away.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The part of the rule that is most flawed IMO, is the part about maintaining possession (after a 3rd step) when contacting the ground (in bounds or out of bounds), since by rule, the ground can't cause a fumble, but it can cause an incompletion? Just saw this happen on Saturday in the endzone during the Badger Game. Peavy catches the ball in end zone, takes 1..2..3 steps gets pushed out of bounds and to the ground and has a slight bobble when he hits ground....touchdown ....oh wait.....after further review....

This article for me is a pretty good explanation of how to fix it:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/10/23/9603242/how-to-fix-nfl-confusing-catch-rule

 

[tyler414]

If the player grabs the ball, tucks it in, then shows some sign of focus on dodging a defender, keeping feet in bounds, protecting the ball, etc. If they focus on continuing the play they obviously feel they have control of the ball.
If the player is going out of bounds, two feet in and, ball can not come out.
There isn't a real way to explain it in the rule book really better than they have it, the refs need to be on the same page when enforcing the rule. It's not going to be an easy problem address.