NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS

[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.