NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

That didn't stop replay from overturning Zach Miller's touchdown on the play that could have cost him his leg.

Ok, what's your point? You already posted at length on that play in an earlier thread. We're talking about these plays.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by scrounge

Ok, what's your point? You already posted at length on that play in an earlier thread. We're talking about these plays.

It's relevant here because the same rule was applied. The replay official, Riveron, erred in the overturn there, which speaks to the lack of consistency even though the rule is written in a way to try to limit subjectivity. I'm suggesting that the rule should be re-written in a way that's more logical with what "should" be a considered a touchdown even if it adds subjectivity because the subjectivity has been there regardless.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

It's relevant here because the same rule was applied. The replay official, Riveron, erred in the overturn there, which speaks to the lack of consistency even though the rule is written in a way to try to limit subjectivity. I'm suggesting that the rule should be re-written in a way that's more logical with what "should" be a considered a touchdown even if it adds subjectivity because the subjectivity has been there regardless.

There will always be close cases and things near the line, no matter where the line is drawn. The amorphous "I know it when I see it" rule you seemingly want wouldn't just be subjective, it would be arbitrary and unpredictable. It's a solution in search of a problem.

The Steelers player didn't catch the ball. This one wasn't even all that close.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by scrounge

There will always be close cases and things near the line, no matter where the line is drawn. The amorphous "I know it when I see it" rule you seemingly want wouldn't just be subjective, it would be arbitrary and unpredictable. It's a solution in search of a problem.

The Steelers player didn't catch the ball. This one wasn't even all that close.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people watching want that play to be a touchdown. He did break the plane with control of the ball, after all.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people watching want that play to be a touchdown. He did break the plane with control of the ball, after all.

And that's irrelevant because he hadn't finished the catch yet. That's why we need to understand how critically important definitions are.

I see you pointed out one video where you feel replay wasn't consistent. I didn't see the video but yes there will still be outliers if it wasn't consistent. There was probably still some aspect about it that affected the replay officials decisions, but they are human also. Replay officials get downgrades too. But if there were 100 catch/no catch plays before this philosophy/rule evolved several years ago, you may have had 20-30 that had significant discrepancy among officials. Now you may have 5. That's a huge improvement in efficiency. Critics will still focus on the 5 rather than the consistent 95.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people watching want that play to be a touchdown. He did break the plane with control of the ball, after all.

Who cares? A majority of people may scream holding on every play, we're taking a poll here. And breaking the plane doesn't matter if he doesn't have the ball, and he doesn't have the ball till he catches it.

[JRutledge]

OK, tell us how the rule should be written? Because if I am reading this right, you do not like "Football move" analogy, but they have control of a pass when? Because what I am seeing people ask for is very subjective. Even the term "Football move" has some subjectivity to it, but at least if you are going to the ground, you must survive the ground and the ball should never come out (if you would have been out of bounds) or hit the ground without complete control. So I want to know what should the rule be changed to?

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So I want to know what should the rule be changed to? Peace

This latest "interpretation" seems like a perfect example of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Some things are just naturally subjective, and all the King's horses and all the King's men will never be able to change that.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK, tell us how the rule should be written? Because if I am reading this right, you do not like "Football move" analogy, but they have control of a pass when? Because what I am seeing people ask for is very subjective. Even the term "Football move" has some subjectivity to it, but at least if you are going to the ground, you must survive the ground and the ball should never come out (if you would have been out of bounds) or hit the ground without complete control. So I want to know what should the rule be changed to?

Peace

I think the primary argument on this play is that he caught the ball cleanly, then his knee came down while he maintained control of the ball (technically surviving his initial contact with the ground), he then clearly extended the ball over the goal line. He only lost control after all of that had occurred. I think that's the basis people are using for attacking the rule.



I haven't watched that in its entirety yet, but it does highlight some inconsistencies early and make a suggestion for how the rule could be worded.