NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I think the argument in favor of this being a TD is that he clearly made a clean catch with control of the ball and lunged for the endzone, only losing control after the ball had broken the plane. People are seeing that as a football move. Given the inconsistent way that replay decisions have been made this year, with several decisions not being supported by video, it should be no surprise that high-profile calls are getting even more attention than usual. Also, technically, he survived his "initial contact with the ground," which was his knee, then lunged for the endzone, losing the ball after that.

I do think it's worth exploring if there's a way to modify the rule so that this play and others like it are touchdowns, as they should be, in my opinion. The key would be to do it in such a way that it's not going to lead to a bunch of cheap turnovers in the field of play. Perhaps a rule change that only applies to the endzone?

To argue you that you are adding a lot of additional information that is irrelevant. He's clearly going to the ground as part of making the catch so the only thing you have to worry about is if he maintains control and the ball doesn't hit the ground if it comes loose. If that doesn't happen you have a catch. Now you are dealing with location of the ball when the knee hits under NCAA/NFHS rules. If you are going to change the rule to somehow allow these to be catches you are going to be adding a ton of subjectivity to the call and a lot more inconsistency. I'd rather not go back to that.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

To argue you that you are adding a lot of additional information that is irrelevant. He's clearly going to the ground as part of making the catch so the only thing you have to worry about is if he maintains control and the ball doesn't hit the ground if it comes loose. If that doesn't happen you have a catch. Now you are dealing with location of the ball when the knee hits under NCAA/NFHS rules. If you are going to change the rule to somehow allow these to be catches you are going to be adding a ton of subjectivity to the call and a lot more inconsistency. I'd rather not go back to that.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's the issue people have with the rule. I completely understand the rule as interpreted. It's also clearly not consistently applied, and a rule that has plays such as this not be a touchdown is flawed. If this rule were applied consistently, maybe it could be acceptable, but it's not.

I think a better option needs to be put in place, even if it increases subjectivity. The supposed objectivity that comes with the rule in its current form is undercut by poor replay decisions from New York.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

It's not irrelevant at all. It's the issue people have with the rule. I completely understand the rule as interpreted. It's also clearly not consistently applied, and a rule that has plays such as this not be a touchdown is flawed. If this rule were applied consistently, maybe it could be acceptable, but it's not.

I think a better option needs to be put in place, even if it increases subjectivity. The supposed objectivity that comes with the rule in its current form is undercut by poor replay decisions from New York.

I disagree with the lack of consistency. If you understand what the rule means it is significantly more consistent. Announcers and fans feel it's not consistent because they don't know the rule. I feel the same way when I watch basketball. It seems like block/charge and other fouls are very inconsistently called. But I'm smart enough to know I don't understand the rule and how it's called.

When I sit in association and study group meetings and we discuss catch/no catch plays there is a lot less debate about them, especially when the receiver is going to the ground. It takes away so many things you may have previously considered. Did he maintain control? Did the loose ball hit the ground? If the first question is yes and the second question is no you have a catch. It's as simple as that. Bang bang hits that cause the ball to come loose, incomplete. There is still some gray area but it is so much smaller and that leads to consistency. If you don't feel it's there you are buying what the commentators are selling.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I disagree with the lack of consistency. If you understand what the rule means it is significantly more consistent. Announcers and fans feel it's not consistent because they don't know the rule. I feel the same way when I watch basketball. It seems like block/charge and other fouls are very inconsistently called. But I'm smart enough to know I don't understand the rule and how it's called.

When I sit in association and study group meetings and we discuss catch/no catch plays there is a lot less debate about them, especially when the receiver is going to the ground. It takes away so many things you may have previously considered. Did he maintain control? Did the loose ball hit the ground? If the first question is yes and the second question is no you have a catch. It's as simple as that. Bang bang hits that cause the ball to come loose, incomplete. There is still some gray area but it is so much smaller and that leads to consistency. If you don't feel it's there you are buying what the commentators are selling.

You're missing the point. I understand the rule. Replay's determination of what is or isn't "surviving the ground" is inconsistent.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

You're missing the point. I understand the rule. Replay's determination of what is or isn't "surviving the ground" is inconsistent.

It is not consistent when they get a good angle to see the entire play. Part of this is based on the angles the videos show.

Peace