NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

To satisfy all the pundits and fans who think the current rule isn't consistent, I offer this suggestion.

If my gut tells me it's a catch, it's a catch.

You can't get much simpler than that. It's also grossly subjective, but this is the only way I think we can satisfy all these "experts." The stupid fan video actually shows how consistent the calls have been. In the Gronk case he appears to control the ball the entire time and the fact it may have scraped the ground is irrelevant. The other Patriots catch it's hard to tell if the ball came loose. If it did, that would be incomplete. As I recall, the Steelers INT was graded as an incorrect application of the catch rule. That's still subjective but sometimes supervisors/graders will get the call wrong.

In the Gronkowski play, the ball rotates significantly upon contact with the ground. The ball clearly moves in the Falcons play as well. There's just no consistency.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

To satisfy all the pundits and fans who think the current rule isn't consistent, I offer this suggestion.

If my gut tells me it's a catch, it's a catch.

AFAIK, that's how it's been ruled in baseball since, like, forever. Baseball has lots of cases of fielders falling with the ball, the ball's popping out, the ball's being carried over a field boundary, and cases where voluntary release has to be distinguished from failure to catch. Yet even at the highest levels of the game, unlike the NFL, they've never seen a need to refine it further or adopt some proxy determination for that judgment call.

[FormerUmp]

Another example of an incorrect overturn to highlight the inconsistency. This was originally called a TD on the field.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/liJr...25613/KB.0.gif

Originally Posted by Mike Pereira on Twitter

regarding the Buffalo no touchdown, nothing more irritating to an official than to make a great call and then someone in a suit in an office in New York incorrectly reverses it. It is more and more obvious that there isn't a standard for staying with the call on the field.

And, in the interest of fairness, the official NFL explanation:

In #BUFvsNE, when Kelvin Benjamin gains control, his left foot is off the ground. The receiver only has one foot down in bounds with control. Therefore, it is an incomplete pass. -AL

[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.

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

I have complete understanding of the rule as written. I've demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread.

What I'm proposing and attempting to discuss, along with others, is a potential improvement to the rule.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I have complete understanding of the rule as written. I've demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread.

What I'm proposing and attempting to discuss, along with others, is a potential improvement to the rule.

It doesn't need improving. It's exactly what it should be.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Uneducated? He speaks from experience as a player. When you feel the football in your hands, you know what possession is. Then it's just a matter of the rules makers translating that to something an official can see.

Players sit on the competition committee of the NFL and write the rules?

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

They didn't shrink the grey area, they just moved it. Now the grey area is over determining when a player is going to the ground while attempting a catch or recovery.

Well, it is better than ruling a TD by the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. I saw that play years before I was an official and thought there is no way that was a catch, but it was ruled one. I am fine with the way the rule is.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Besides, this didn't get rid of the most controversial catch-&-fumble or recovery-&-fumble calls, because most of them didn't involve the ball's coming out because of contact with the ground.

You will never get rid of controversy. But if you change it to what some people think you will have nothing but controversy. Because if you change the rule to what some want, you will have several bad turnovers, which seems to be the reason for the change over the years.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I have complete understanding of the rule as written. I've demonstrated that repeatedly in this thread.

What I'm proposing and attempting to discuss, along with others, is a potential improvement to the rule.

If you say so.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you say so.

Peace

I've made suggestions or offered up solutions that others have stated. I clearly understand how the rule is written. I just think it could be better. I've shown pretty clearly that it's not as simple as Polian says. I wouldn't say that anything I've offered up necessarily makes it more simple, but I think what I've offered up makes more sense without overcomplicating matters.

And if makes you feel any better, Mike Periera is saying the same thing I am:

Now that another touchdown has been taken away with out clear and obvious evidence, it is time to move on to the catch rule. It doesn't work. I doesn't make sense. Start with the Jessie James play. That should be a catch and a touchdown not an incomplete pass. (more)
Make it like a catch on an upright receiver. If you get control and two feet or another today body part on the ground and then reach or lunch, you have made a football move, they it should be a catch. Replay can only review the control and two feet. Not the FB move. Credit PFT.

By the way, my reference to PFT was Mike Florio's suggestion that the subjective element of time or football move not be reviewable. I agree.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by FormerUmp

I've made suggestions or offered up solutions that others have stated. I clearly understand how the rule is written. I just think it could be better. I've shown pretty clearly that it's not as simple as Polian says. I wouldn't say that anything I've offered up necessarily makes it more simple, but I think what I've offered up makes more sense without overcomplicating matters.

And if makes you feel any better, Mike Periera is saying the same thing I am:

You are having this conversation in a place where no one here is going to make any such change. I do not think you understand the rule because you keep talking about the rule and the application as if they are the same thing. As stated by Polian, they officiate these plays in HDTV. They do not rule these plays in live time or without looking at these plays in slow motion. Yes the officials on the field will do what they see to the best of their ability, but they do not make the final decision if instant replay comes into play. So again, this conversation is really silly in the end. I do not think it matters what your specific solution as most people here seems to disagree with you big time.

Peace

[FormerUmp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are having this conversation in a place where no one here is going to make any such change. I do not think you understand the rule because you keep talking about the rule and the application as if they are the same thing. As stated by Polian, they officiate these plays in HDTV. They do not rule these plays in live time or without looking at these plays in slow motion. Yes the officials on the field will do what they see to the best of their ability, but they do not make the final decision if instant replay comes into play. So again, this conversation is really silly in the end. I do not think it matters what your specific solution as most people here seems to disagree with you big time.

Peace

What Pereira said takes what I was getting at and states it more clearly. The situation can be helped by limiting what replay is allowed to review. In the case of the James play, once replay sees he had control of the ball with a knee down at the the time the ball broke the plane, play over. What happens after doesn't matter.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

this conversation is really silly in the end. I do not think it matters what your specific solution as most people here seems to disagree with you big time. Peace

Funny, how a conversation becomes "silly", when one stated opinion is unable to persuade differing opinions that their conclusions make sense, or are worth further consideration. Of course, it is a lot easier to simply declare being correct, than convince those who logically and reasonably disagree with your explanation, or have any idea what "most people" think about anything.

On a related note, when and who, determined that the slightest movement of a ball in player possession AUTOMATICALLY confirmed that possession was somehow "lost". There seems to be endless situations where "movement of the ball" has absolutely nothing to do with a player losing firm possession and maintaining absolute control of that ball.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Funny, how a conversation becomes "silly", when one stated opinion is unable to persuade differing opinions that their conclusions make sense, or are worth further consideration. Of course, it is a lot easier to simply declare being correct, than convince those who logically and reasonably disagree with your explanation, or have any idea what "most people" think about anything.

On a related note, when and who, determined that the slightest movement of a ball in player possession AUTOMATICALLY confirmed that possession was somehow "lost". There seems to be endless situations where "movement of the ball" has absolutely nothing to do with a player losing firm possession and maintaining absolute control of that ball.

That is not my position. The rule is very clear, but what people see on video might be different. IT is silly when we have to go back and forth when ultimately this conversation is not going to change anything. All FormerUmp does is come here and complain. He hardly ever adds anything to the site or has reasonable conversations about the situation he even addresses. It gets silly when you cannot even understand that we are not going to change our minds. Again, even if we agree, they are not changing the rule because we said so.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is not my position. The rule is very clear, but what people see on video might be different. IT is silly when we have to go back and forth when ultimately this conversation is not going to change anything. All FormerUmp does is come here and complain. He hardly ever adds anything to the site or has reasonable conversations about the situation he even addresses. It gets silly when you cannot even understand that we are not going to change our minds. Again, even if we agree, they are not changing the rule because we said so.

Peace

I agree with you, especially the assessment of the OP.

Thread is now closed, and it's time to move on.