NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[Line_Judge]

IMO- The NFL has certainly overcomplicated this rule.

With that being said, regarding NFHS rules, the Pittsburgh receiver made the catch, turned, and the ball crossed the plane of the GL. Once the ball crosses the plane, end of story, TD every friday.

Clarification: I realize the replay had his knee down prior to crossing the GL, but my explanation would be without the knee down, as this seemed to be the main point of this discussion.

[JRutledge]

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Peace

You make a good point, for sure.

I think the difference between the older videos and the two newer ones is that people see the would-be receiver making a motion to extend the ball to the goal line, which those observers view as an act beyond the catch. The term "football move" is often used, and I believe people think the extension of the ball towards the goal line qualifies.

Unfortunately I don't think these calls are made as consistently as they could be despite that intended lack of subjectivity in the rule. I think a tweak of some sort has to be made to introduce a little "common sense" into the rule. I think the majority of fans, when explained, understand why this particular play was ruled incomplete. I also think they believe it should be a catch. The rules should probably align more with that view, in my opinion. Ultimately it comes down to what the league and competition committee want to do, so we'll have to wait and see if they come up with anything that doesn't create even worse unintended consequences.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

You make a good point, for sure.

I think the difference between the older videos and the two newer ones is that people see the would-be receiver making a motion to extend the ball to the goal line, which those observers view as an act beyond the catch. The term "football move" is often used, and I believe people think the extension of the ball towards the goal line qualifies.

If a play was on the sideline, if you do not get two feet down, it is not a catch. Not sure why this is hard to understand if you are diving to the ground or get hit and the ball comes out. This is a similar process that a catch must be completed in almost every single way.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Unfortunately, I don't think these calls are made as consistently as they could be despite that intended lack of subjectivity in the rule. I think a tweak of some sort has to be made to introduce a little "common sense" into the rule. I think the majority of fans, when explained, understand why this particular play was ruled incomplete. I also think they believe it should be a catch. The rules should probably align more with that view, in my opinion. Ultimately it comes down to what the league and competition committee want to do, so we'll have to wait and see if they come up with anything that doesn't create even worse unintended consequences.

The standard is not what you see, the standard is what they are actually doing. Many plays which could be referenced this year show plays where passes were overturned by replay when reviewed. Unlike college, they do not automatically review every catch. They only review when the coach challenges the calls and when it is within the last 2 minutes of the half and every scoring play. That is it. So a play in the middle of the field is not reviewed unless a coach challenges that play or within the last two minutes. But I have seen many plays this year overturned similar to what has was done in the Pittsburgh game. And this is a media problem, not a rules problem. The media seems to not ever deal with the facts of the case in an accurate way. I am going to show a comment from ESPN about the rule.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If a play was on the sideline, if you do not get two feet down, it is not a catch. Not sure why this is hard to understand if you are diving to the ground or get hit and the ball comes out. This is a similar process that a catch must be completed in almost every single way.

Because on a play like this, people see him catch the ball and control it enough to reach it across the goal line. They view that level of control as possession regardless of how the rule is written.

They see a player with a knee down in-bounds, control of the ball and the ball breaking the plane. It makes sense that people would see that as a touchdown, even if it isn't by rule. The rule is a little counter-intuitive that way.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Because on a play like this, people see him catch the ball and control it enough to reach it across the goal line. They view that level of control as possession regardless of how the rule is written.

Who cares what people think they see. They see their emotions, which we cannot officiate by or under those positions. The rule is defined just like how you enforce a penalty. If it was not that way, then everyone would be complaining about what the rule should be anyway. Who cares what "people" that have no skin in the game think? Even coaches and NFL people know the rule and that is why you do not see coaches and administrators in the NFL complaining.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

They see a player with a knee down in-bounds, control of the ball and the ball breaking the plane. It makes sense that people would see that as a touchdown, even if it isn't by rule. The rule is a little counter-intuitive that way.

OK, this is not college football. The play would not be over even in college. If you are not giving the ball to the other team if that ball pops out at the 50-yard line, then you cannot tell me "It was a catch." Because if that ball popped up in the air outside of the goal line, you advocating giving a fumble or interception on some level? I doubt that seriously.

The NFL did not want cheap fumbles or catches. That is what Bill Polian said on ESPN the other day and said that was the case some years ago. And when I was a kid and saw the very first play, I never thought that was a catch, but the rules did not seem to be as defined.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who cares what people think they see. They see their emotions, which we cannot officiate by or under those positions. The rule is defined just like how you enforce a penalty. If it was not that way, then everyone would be complaining about what the rule should be anyway. Who cares what "people" that have no skin in the game think? Even coaches and NFL people know the rule and that is why you do not see coaches and administrators in the NFL complaining.



OK, this is not college football. The play would not be over even in college. If you are not giving the ball to the other team if that ball pops out at the 50-yard line, then you cannot tell me "It was a catch." Because if that ball popped up in the air outside of the goal line, you advocating giving a fumble or interception on some level? I doubt that seriously.

The NFL did not want cheap fumbles or catches. That is what Bill Polian said on ESPN the other day and said that was the case some years ago. And when I was a kid and saw the very first play, I never thought that was a catch, but the rules did not seem to be as defined.

Peace

So, just to clarify. You think the rule should remain the way it is?

Regardless, if you were to try to "fix" it, how would you go about doing so?

And just for the record, nobody was complaining at the time that it should have been called incomplete either. For the most part people now are in agreement that the correct call was made given the way the rule is written, but most people also seem to think it's a bad rule. Obviously this isn't based on any kind of scientific poll, but the majority of comments I've seen have been from people who think this play should be a touchdown and that the rule needs to be fixed so it is one.

One other call that comes to mind from earlier this season. This play was originally called a catch and then down by contact. Inexplicably the call was changed to an interception after review, presumably due to the misuse of the same rule we're discussing right now.

https://youtu.be/TOPRop4_R4A?t=233