You CANNOT dig yourself out of a hole, by digging downward. The existing rules determining "a catch" weren't absolutely perfect, but served really well for a long time.

Has this adjustment clarified anything, improved, or clarified, everyone's understanding and acceptance of what's necessary? If you scratch the smallest, most benign blemish, long enough or hard enough intending to remove it, you can make it bleed of infected.

Sometimes the most sensible way to eliminate a hole, is simply to put all the dirt back in, and accept it's a potential, but rarely problematic, hole.

I agree with all this...I think. There's no way to get away from the factual judgment of whether a player has a good enough grip on the ball (and the requisite body parts on the ground in bounds). You can put in various extra criteria in certain cases in an attempt to get rid of that judgment, but all you'll succeed in doing is transferring part or all of the judgment of one factual cirumstance to another, and complicating the whole procedure.

Some players falling while catching or recovering a ball hit the ground and lost it or caused it to touch the ground. In some cases the officials ruled that possession preceded the ball's popping out or the player's hitting the ground, and in other cases that there had been no possession, and they may have been correct or incorrect in either case. Other people looking at the same play frequently would disagree with their judgment, as is part and parcel of such determinations. But it looked like seeing whether the ball subsequently hit the ground or came loose might've been a good proxy in some cases for whether the player's grasp was good enough (so good that some people in this thread would use it as a way to rule in cases in Fed or NCAA), and in some cases easier to see, so the NFL adopted a provision holding the judgment of possession in abeyance until that determination could be made. But that turns out not to be an easier thing to see in many cases. The judgment has merely been shifted to a question of whether the player was "going to the ground" during the catch, or a catch occurred before the player started "going to the ground". Not to mention cases wherein under the new rule a player rolls over on the ball as part of a motion to the ground with the ball in hands, and you'd theoretically have to see whether the ball touched the ground while you're screened from seeing it by that player's body.

BTW, the previous wording as part of possession, "[enough] to perform any act common to the game", I had to laugh at. NCAA got rid of that language long ago because they realized it didn't make any judgment easier, while NFL kept it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iLqMCT7yTVY" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nobody has anything to say about the suggestion in that video?

I really don't think it's any more subjective than the rule as it currently exists.

There is nothing to say because I do not care what uneducated people have to say honestly.

This is actually someone in the know talking about this issue. Some guy creating a video is nice, but not relevant.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZbM0Gu3f5Rk" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

It seems strange that you would ask for an alternative and then decline comment when one is presented.

The video also does a good job of making my point on the failures of replay on these calls.

All I'm saying is the receiver had control of the ball when it broke the goal line plane, which should count as a TD.

I was not asking for an alternative, you were not giving one while complaining. This is your beef. I like the rule and so does the NFL. I see why the rule is the way it is and like the current rule. Your position would cause other issues which are against the very thing Bill Polian addressed.

Here is also the thing, people clamor for replay until it is actually executed. This is the beat that fans wanted, now you complain when they do exactly what you wished for. Ironic isn't it?

Peace

And what you are saying does not fit the rule even as I referenced. I might think that I have a million dollars coming to me for Christmas and that does not make it so because I believe something. There has to be something in place to make that happen. Just like the rules of the game that are in place that clearly says he has to come to the ground (lunge and all) and maintain control of the ball. The play is not over just because he has the ball with two knees on the ground and might at that moment have the ball in his hand. He has to maintain that control through the ground, as stated by Polian and the rules referenced in the video.

Peace

That would be better than what we have right now for plays at the goal line or in the end zone.

Bill Polian's explanation didn't do anything for me except reinforce the level of subjectivity involved in the rule as it currently exists. It's not at all as "simple" as he makes it sound. There's still a tremendous amount of subjectivity over "how long is long enough" for possession for an upright receiver, for example. Why not maintain that level of subjectivity AND have the rule make sense? Bill Polian's explanation also suggests that the ball was coming lose as it crossed the goal line, which is totally untrue.

The current rule, as written, completely justifies people not knowing what is or isn't a catch, and that's not caused by people who just don't get it. I'm admittedly not a football official, but I try to maintain a well above average rules knowledge and I watch enough of the game and read explanations of calls from officials to try to further that knowledge. If I have to sit there and wait for a review on a close catch/no-catch call to know what the call is going to be, that's a problem with the rule.

That is your opinion. I do not think there is much wrong with the rule as many of those that have to actually enforce the rules. When this was reviewed this past offseason, nothing changed. I bet that is the case because they had to deal with all the possibilities out there in the rule and realized how easy the application of this current rule is in place.

He did not say anything about the ball coming loose. He said that he must survive the ground before you can even talk about possession. You obviously did not pay attention to the actual words he said. He even showed another play and said how that was different than the Jessie James play.

I can tell that you did not pay attention to the video, because not only did one of his partners say that players understand what the rule is, they complain because they do not like the rule. Not liking the rule is not a justification for a change. There are a lot of rules that people do not like, but those rules never change and likely hardly ever will for some time.

And if you have not noticed, not very many people are having this discussion with you for a reason. I do not mind because these things interest me. But it is clear that most officials could give a damn about changing the rule here and as expected a fan like yourself that does not officiate has no idea how these things will influence how you call games. Until your butt is on the line, it is really easy to tell others what they should do or how things are changing.

Peace

I watched and comprehended the whole thing. It's still incredibly subjective.

I like it, except for the concept of distinguishing action out of bounds from that in bounds. Somebody makes a late hit out of bounds, we don't want that to be discounted because it was out of bounds; etc. A determination of dead ball spot or touchdown can be held in abeyance pending evidence of a catch, so I don't see the problem he does with that part. But he's right on when it comes to his initial critique and fix.

Uneducated? He speaks from experience as a player. When you feel the football in your hands, you know what possession is. Then it's just a matter of the rules makers translating that to something an official can see.
They didn't shrink the grey area, they just moved it. Now the grey area is over determining when a player is going to the ground while attempting a catch or recovery.

Besides, this didn't get rid of the most controversial catch-&-fumble or recovery-&-fumble calls, because most of them didn't involve the ball's coming out because of contact with the ground.

If that were uniformly true, that player would not have touched the ball to the ground, thinking he had scored a touchdown. When he reached the ball over the goal plane, he had to know that move would end with the ball on the ground.

To satisfy all the pundits and fans who think the current rule isn't consistent, I offer this suggestion.

If my gut tells me it's a catch, it's a catch.

You can't get much simpler than that. It's also grossly subjective, but this is the only way I think we can satisfy all these "experts." The stupid fan video actually shows how consistent the calls have been. In the Gronk case he appears to control the ball the entire time and the fact it may have scraped the ground is irrelevant. The other Patriots catch it's hard to tell if the ball came loose. If it did, that would be incomplete. As I recall, the Steelers INT was graded as an incorrect application of the catch rule. That's still subjective but sometimes supervisors/graders will get the call wrong.