Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1013610)

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.

Originally Posted by bisonlj (Post 1013610)

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.

Originally Posted by Mike Pereira on Twitter

regarding the Buffalo no touchdown, nothing more irritating to an official than to make a great call and then someone in a suit in an office in New York incorrectly reverses it. It is more and more obvious that there isn't a standard for staying with the call on the field.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp (Post 1013602)

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.

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1013618)

I saw it once, saw the ball move, and knew it was coming back incomplete.

What's lacking is your understanding of the NFL application of the definition of a catch.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp (Post 1013619)

I have complete understanding of the rule as written. I've demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread.

What I'm proposing and attempting to discuss, along with others, is a potential improvement to the rule.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1013608)

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1013608)

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.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman (Post 1013608)

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.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp (Post 1013619)

I have complete understanding of the rule as written. I've demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread.

What I'm proposing and attempting to discuss, along with others, is a potential improvement to the rule.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1013628)

If you say so. :rolleyes:

Peace

Originally Posted by FormerUmp (Post 1013631)

I've made suggestions or offered up solutions that others have stated. I clearly understand how the rule is written. I just think it could be better. I've shown pretty clearly that it's not as simple as Polian says. I wouldn't say that anything I've offered up necessarily makes it more simple, but I think what I've offered up makes more sense without overcomplicating matters.

And if makes you feel any better, Mike Periera is saying the same thing I am:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1013638)

You are having this conversation in a place where no one here is going to make any such change. I do not think you understand the rule because you keep talking about the rule and the application as if they are the same thing. As stated by Polian, they officiate these plays in HDTV. They do not rule these plays in live time or without looking at these plays in slow motion. Yes the officials on the field will do what they see to the best of their ability, but they do not make the final decision if instant replay comes into play. So again, this conversation is really silly in the end. I do not think it matters what your specific solution as most people here seems to disagree with you big time.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1013638)

this conversation is really silly in the end. I do not think it matters what your specific solution as most people here seems to disagree with you big time. Peace

Originally Posted by ajmc (Post 1013642)

Funny, how a conversation becomes "silly", when one stated opinion is unable to persuade differing opinions that their conclusions make sense, or are worth further consideration. Of course, it is a lot easier to simply declare being correct, than convince those who logically and reasonably disagree with your explanation, or have any idea what "most people" think about anything.

On a related note, when and who, determined that the slightest movement of a ball in player possession AUTOMATICALLY confirmed that possession was somehow "lost". There seems to be endless situations where "movement of the ball" has absolutely nothing to do with a player losing firm possession and maintaining absolute control of that ball.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1013645)

That is not my position. The rule is very clear, but what people see on video might be different. IT is silly when we have to go back and forth when ultimately this conversation is not going to change anything. All FormerUmp does is come here and complain. He hardly ever adds anything to the site or has reasonable conversations about the situation he even addresses. It gets silly when you cannot even understand that we are not going to change our minds. Again, even if we agree, they are not changing the rule because we said so.

Peace