NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

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?

Yes, because I remember the change. I remember the controversy. I remember the reason why there was a rule in place. And until you give a better solution, then there is no reason for a change.

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.[/QUOTE]

Nobody? We are in this discussion because this was a national discussion about what should be done for this rule. I highly doubt you even post here about this if there was no discussion of this rule all over the media. Because the media loves to rant about things as if they are tragedies and often do not want to address issues that are right in front of their face.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

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.

He was not going to the ground. He was not only making a football move and turned up but was hit by another player. And the media complained about this play as well. So who cares what people say? You will not satisfy anyone if they want to act ignorant.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

If you want a really stark contrast on this, take the example of the 1970 AFL playoff game where Blanda's pass was caught by a receiver in the air just short of the goal line, he took one step in the field of play backing into the end zone, and as he broke the plane of the goal line with the ball, an opponent hit him from behind and knocked it loose: touchdown. It didn't seem he'd gotten his other foot down, and contact with the opponent prevented that before the ball broke the plane, but its doing so while in his grasp was ruled to have not only killed the ball but caused the loose ball to end in his possession. Probably had that play occurred clearly in the field of play, the status of the ball is still in doubt as he's coming down, so it's an incomplete pass. Nowadays on the goal line I think they'd have the status of the ball and therefore the score in abeyance and rule it incomplete there as well, since, after all, it's the score that kills the ball, not merely having it in one's grasp while airborne beyond the goal line.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He was not going to the ground. He was not only making a football move and turned up but was hit by another player.

Well, now, see, that's the problem with writing a provision using language like "going to the ground" that doesn't distinguish between merely falling and deliberately lunging.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Well, now, see, that's the problem with writing a provision using language like "going to the ground" that doesn't distinguish between merely falling and deliberately lunging.

Why is this different than any other possession issue in the end zone? If he stepped a foot on the end line or sideline in the EZ, this would not be an issue. So now breaking the plane without any hit does not matter? Again, people want it both ways and that is the problem.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why is this different than any other possession issue in the end zone? If he stepped a foot on the end line or sideline in the EZ, this would not be an issue. So now breaking the plane without any hit does not matter? Again, people want it both ways and that is the problem. Peace

One reason/difference (in NFHS) might be NFHS 8-2-1 &1a; "Possession of a live ball in the opponents EZ is always a touchdown.

1a. "It is a TD when a runner advances from the field of play so that the ball penetrates the vertical plane of the opponent's goal line.".

2-32-13, provides: "A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

One reason/difference (in NFHS) might be NFHS 8-2-1 &1a; "Possession of a live ball in the opponents EZ is always a touchdown.

Yes, and you have to complete a catch to have a TD.

Originally Posted by ajmc

1a. "It is a TD when a runner advances from the field of play so that the ball penetrates the vertical plane of the opponent's goal line.".

2-32-13, provides: "A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball."

All interesting references, but nothing says when possession is on a catch. Simply having the hands on the ball does not complete possession.

Also, the NFL has the right to determine when you have possession. To the NFL you must complete the process of the catch which includes surviving the ground or surviving the hit. There are many that feel we should use the same standard in NF games and many do. I was always taught not to have cheap fumbles or catches.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, and you have to complete a catch to have a TD.



All interesting references, but nothing says when possession is on a catch. Simply having the hands on the ball does not complete possession.

Also, the NFL has the right to determine when you have possession. To the NFL you must complete the process of the catch which includes surviving the ground or surviving the hit. There are many that feel we should use the same standard in NF games and many do. I was always taught not to have cheap fumbles or catches.

Peace

What's your opinion on this one?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes, and you have to complete a catch to have a TD.
All interesting references, but nothing says when possession is on a catch. Simply having the hands on the ball does not complete possession.

There are many that feel we should use the same standard in NF games and many do. I was always taught not to have cheap fumbles or catches.
Peace

That's why I specified NFHS, which also describes both a "Catch" (of a pass) and "possession", with definitions that have been constant for decades.

NFHS 2-34-1: "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it."

NFHS 2-4-1: "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (recently expanded to include) or having the forward progress of the player in possession stopped while the opponent is carrying the player who is in possession and inbounds.

NFL rules are designed for extraordinary talented and experienced professional athletes, who are grown men in a profit centered environment, with unique objectives, whereas NFHS rules cover Interscholastic and "sandlot" athletic development level programs. Each rule code is designed for it's specific participants.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

What's your opinion on this one?

Did the ball hit the ground? Video did not support that it did.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

That's why I specified NFHS, which also describes both a "Catch" (of a pass) and "possession", with definitions that have been constant for decades.

NFHS 2-34-1: "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it."

NFHS 2-4-1: "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (recently expanded to include) or having the forward progress of the player in possession stopped while the opponent is carrying the player who is in possession and inbounds.

NFL rules are designed for extraordinary talented and experienced professional athletes, who are grown men in a profit centered environment, with unique objectives, whereas NFHS rules cover Interscholastic and "sandlot" athletic development level programs. Each rule code is designed for it's specific participants.

Great reference, if you do not survive the ground (or the hit) in my game, you do not get a catch in my game. That is my crew philosophy and we do not have replay to tell us otherwise. That simple. No cheap fumbles or catches, especially in the end zone.

Peace

[JRutledge]

This is an HS game. You calling this a TD?



Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is an HS game. You calling this a TD?



Peace

The BJ was a lot closer to the action than this camera, and had a much better view to assess possession. He didn't think it was a TD, why would I (or anyone) question his judgment? Neither you, or your crew, "give" anyone a catch, when a player completes a catch according to the rules under which the game is being played, you, or your crew, have the opportunity to confirm, or reject, whether a catch was completed. Either a peg fits the hole, or it doesn't, you don't get to adjust the hole as you see fit.