NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[ajmc]

Maybe it was my viewing angle, but it looked the same in both real time and slow motion. A 4 step sequence where; Receiver 1. possessed the live ball in flight, 2. Touched the ground (in the field of play) with his knee, 3. twisted his body and dove for the goal line, 4. Which the ball crossed BEFORE touching the ground, where TOTAL possession is questionable.

In my world, where the ball was (in relation to the goal line) when his knee hit the ground (and he maintained possession) would be the succeeding spot - likely short of the goal. In the NFL world, I'm only a spectator with an inconsequential opinion.

[SNIPERBBB]

My issue with the reversal was that there was no replay that shows the ball touching the ground.

[FormerUmp]

I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of football fans think this play should be a touchdown.

Is it possible to tweak the rule to allow plays such as this or the Dez Bryant play from a few years ago to be touchdowns without lowering the bar for a catch to the point that a lot of what are currently incomplete passes turn into catch/fumbles and possibly turnovers? Is it possible to tweak the rule only on plays involving the endzone?

In this particular play as with the Dez Bryant play, I agree with ajmc that I see a catch, contact with the ground and a separate motion to extend the ball over the plane prior to any loss of control, I believe that's what a lot of people who believe this should be a touchdown also see. They consider that to be a "football move."

I know using "common sense" to describe a rule book scenario isn't necessarily good practice, but it seems like the NFL has to come out with explanations for a lot of plays like this and taking a more "common sense" approach would be better for the game. Like it or not, there are people who look at this review and look at how long it took and wonder if the fix was in. I'm not suggesting that, but that's how a portion of the fan base will see it, especially since the much-hated Patriots were the team to benefit here.

As scrounge noted, this play isn't particularly controversial to those who know the rule as written and interpreted, but it certainly is to those expecting to be able to utilize "common sense" to judge the play.

[Robert Goodman]

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

Huh. NFL must define "runner" differently from how they used to (player in possession of a live ball), or else this provision is circular.

All I know is, efforts to take the judgment out of things that are ultimately judgment calls -- possession is one example -- are futile. Just as there's no such thing as "safe", but only degrees of safety, there's no such thing as being in control of a ball, only degrees of control.

Well, I suppose they could have a ball that incorporated a pressure transducer and then adopt some arbitrary criterion about having the player's grip increase the ball's pressure by that amount for that long, and a remote recorder to measure those numbers. It would prevent the next Deflategate too.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

All I know is, efforts to take the judgment out of things that are ultimately judgment calls -- possession is one example -- are futile. Just as there's no such thing as "safe", but only degrees of safety, there's no such thing as being in control of a ball, only degrees of control.

Well, I suppose they could have a ball that incorporated a pressure transducer and then adopt some arbitrary criterion about having the player's grip increase the ball's pressure by that amount for that long, and a remote recorder to measure those numbers. It would prevent the next Deflategate too.

We already have a level of football played EXACTLY by the rules you describe, unfortunately it's played on an X-Box rather than a field, with actual humans. We should be careful what we wish for.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

We already have a level of football played EXACTLY by the rules you describe, unfortunately it's played on an X-Box rather than a field, with actual humans. We should be careful what we wish for.

That was suggested in a cartoon on NBC ~30 yrs. ago. The audience took over the game by voting not only on officials' calls, but on the plays themselves. The officials & players revolted, so they fired them all & brought in a big electronic screen.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

My issue with the reversal was that there was no replay that shows the ball touching the ground.

Really? I thought it was pretty clear it did from the replays I saw.