NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

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.

OK, but having the knee on the ground is not the criteria for a catch and doubt would ever be the criteria as the very first play in the video I showed as a catch. And that looks like something that would be debated to people like yourself when a critical play happens. And that first play would also be debated on HDTV even more. Because is it just going to be a knee? Are we going to include a shoulder as well? What about a forearm? And then when is control considered, in the air? When they hit the ground? You have just in your suggestion made what seems simple because you are only referencing the recent play, but not considering the many other types of plays that would come up.

Also, pretty much every level uses this kind of philosophy. Yes, that even includes the NF level that people love to quote the rules because the rule never tells anyone to only consider a specific factor to why a catch is made. The plays I also showed that were high school plays were never questioned by any higher ups and one was in the State Finals. I will not dispute that some high school crew or association does not use this, but I bet they are awful inconsistent in what is considered a catch or not. On my crew, if you do not survive the ground or the hit, we are not giving you a catch. It was that simple. The NCAA is just as stringent in their philosophy and shows videos every week on plays that should not be ruled a catch and they do not include hitting the ground. If you would like, I can show you several NCAA situations put out by the NCAA that shows to not call these kinds of plays a catch and a couple I know (I used in a presentation) involved the goal line.

Until you come up with something better than "his knees were on the ground" we will have the same problems you claim when it comes to lack of consistency. Because there will be a debate about what is a catch even when your knee, shoulder, forearm hit the ground and why one play is a catch and another is not. Also, in the NFL the player is not down if no one touches them, guess how many fumble plays that would be involved? You just created another problem by your narrow criteria. So if that play happens at the 50-yard line and the ball pops up in the air, we calling that situation a catch and a fumble? Again, good luck with that.

Peace