NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[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

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Did you watch the video in my post?

[9thIsleZebra]

I thought catch and TD. The ball was caught in the field of play, controlled by the receiver who extends the ball over the goal line plane. At that point the ball is dead......anything else that happens after is during a dead ball and should not have applied........and the TD should have stood. Now if the pass was caught IN the end zone then we'd have an incomplete pass. If the ball had not broken the goal line plane then that also should be ruled incomplete.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 9thIsleZebra

I thought catch and TD. The ball was caught in the field of play, controlled by the receiver who extends the ball over the goal line plane. At that point the ball is dead......anything else that happens after is during a dead ball and should not have applied........and the TD should have stood.

Just imagine how silly this sounds. If the pass was in the back of the end zone, the very same thing would have been considered. The goal line is not a factor until you actually catch the ball. So this "he lunged into the end zone would be up for debate if he the ball was moving or even not firmly in the hands as well. So again, this is why this logic does not work either.

Originally Posted by 9thIsleZebra

Now if the pass was caught IN the end zone then we'd have an incomplete pass. If the ball had not broken the goal line plane then that also should be ruled incomplete.

Now, this makes no sense. If you have a play anywhere on the field the same criteria should be used no matter where. This is not a ball handler in possession of the ball that breaks the plane (until you catch the ball). The same way we do not give the ball back to a player that once had the ball and fumbles the ball into the end zone, we treat that the same no matter where it happens if the ball is fumbled into the end zone.

Peace

[9thIsleZebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Just imagine how silly this sounds. If the pass was in the back of the end zone, the very same thing would have been considered. The goal line is not a factor until you actually catch the ball. So this "he lunged into the end zone would be up for debate if he the ball was moving or even not firmly in the hands as well. So again, this is why this logic does not work either.



Now, this makes no sense. If you have a play anywhere on the field the same criteria should be used no matter where. This is not a ball handler in possession of the ball that breaks the plane (until you catch the ball). The same way we do not give the ball back to a player that once had the ball and fumbles the ball into the end zone, we treat that the same no matter where it happens if the ball is fumbled into the end zone.

Peace

All I'm saying is the receiver had control of the ball when it broke the goal line plane, which should count as a TD.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by 9thIsleZebra

All I'm saying is the receiver had control of the ball when it broke the goal line plane, which should count as a TD.

And what you are saying does not fit the rule even as I referenced. I might think that I have a million dollars coming to me for Christmas and that does not make it so because I believe something. There has to be something in place to make that happen. Just like the rules of the game that are in place that clearly says he has to come to the ground (lunge and all) and maintain control of the ball. The play is not over just because he has the ball with two knees on the ground and might at that moment have the ball in his hand. He has to maintain that control through the ground, as stated by Polian and the rules referenced in the video.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And what you are saying does not fit the rule even as I referenced. I might think that I have a million dollars coming to me for Christmas and that does not make it so because I believe something. There has to be something in place to make that happen. Just like the rules of the game that are in place that clearly says he has to come to the ground (lunge and all) and maintain control of the ball. The play is not over just because he has the ball with two knees on the ground and might at that moment have the ball in his hand. He has to maintain that control through the ground, as stated by Polian and the rules referenced in the video.

Peace

That would be better than what we have right now for plays at the goal line or in the end zone.

Bill Polian's explanation didn't do anything for me except reinforce the level of subjectivity involved in the rule as it currently exists. It's not at all as "simple" as he makes it sound. There's still a tremendous amount of subjectivity over "how long is long enough" for possession for an upright receiver, for example. Why not maintain that level of subjectivity AND have the rule make sense? Bill Polian's explanation also suggests that the ball was coming lose as it crossed the goal line, which is totally untrue.

The current rule, as written, completely justifies people not knowing what is or isn't a catch, and that's not caused by people who just don't get it. I'm admittedly not a football official, but I try to maintain a well above average rules knowledge and I watch enough of the game and read explanations of calls from officials to try to further that knowledge. If I have to sit there and wait for a review on a close catch/no-catch call to know what the call is going to be, that's a problem with the rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

That would be better than what we have right now for plays at the goal line or in the end zone.

That is your opinion. I do not think there is much wrong with the rule as many of those that have to actually enforce the rules. When this was reviewed this past offseason, nothing changed. I bet that is the case because they had to deal with all the possibilities out there in the rule and realized how easy the application of this current rule is in place.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

Bill Polian's explanation didn't do anything for me except reinforce the level of subjectivity involved in the rule as it currently exists. It's not at all as "simple" as he makes it sound. There's still a tremendous amount of subjectivity over "how long is long enough" for possession for an upright receiver, for example. Why not maintain that level of subjectivity AND have the rule make sense? Bill Polian's explanation also suggests that the ball was coming lose as it crossed the goal line, which is totally untrue.

He did not say anything about the ball coming loose. He said that he must survive the ground before you can even talk about possession. You obviously did not pay attention to the actual words he said. He even showed another play and said how that was different than the Jessie James play.

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

The current rule, as written, completely justifies people not knowing what is or isn't a catch, and that's not caused by people who just don't get it. I'm admittedly not a football official, but I try to maintain a well above average rules knowledge and I watch enough of the game and read explanations of calls from officials to try to further that knowledge. If I have to sit there and wait for a review on a close catch/no-catch call to know what the call is going to be, that's a problem with the rule.

I can tell that you did not pay attention to the video, because not only did one of his partners say that players understand what the rule is, they complain because they do not like the rule. Not liking the rule is not a justification for a change. There are a lot of rules that people do not like, but those rules never change and likely hardly ever will for some time.

And if you have not noticed, not very many people are having this discussion with you for a reason. I do not mind because these things interest me. But it is clear that most officials could give a damn about changing the rule here and as expected a fan like yourself that does not officiate has no idea how these things will influence how you call games. Until your butt is on the line, it is really easy to tell others what they should do or how things are changing.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

That would be better than what we have right now for plays at the goal line or in the end zone.

Bill Polian's explanation didn't do anything for me except reinforce the level of subjectivity involved in the rule as it currently exists. It's not at all as "simple" as he makes it sound. There's still a tremendous amount of subjectivity over "how long is long enough" for possession for an upright receiver, for example. Why not maintain that level of subjectivity AND have the rule make sense? Bill Polian's explanation also suggests that the ball was coming lose as it crossed the goal line, which is totally untrue.

The current rule, as written, completely justifies people not knowing what is or isn't a catch, and that's not caused by people who just don't get it. I'm admittedly not a football official, but I try to maintain a well above average rules knowledge and I watch enough of the game and read explanations of calls from officials to try to further that knowledge. If I have to sit there and wait for a review on a close catch/no-catch call to know what the call is going to be, that's a problem with the rule.

I saw it once, saw the ball move, and knew it was coming back incomplete.

What's lacking is your understanding of the NFL application of the definition of a catch.