NFL Catch Rule vs. NCAA & NFHS
 

Jesse James' go-ahead TD overturned, ruled incomplete pass - NFL Videos

I'm sure most people have seen that by now.

First, for discussion's sake, the rule is written:

One could certainly argue based on the first paragraph that he maintains control of the ball through his initial contact with the ground, then makes a move to extend the ball over the goal line. He has clear possession up until after he extends the ball over the line, well past his initial contact with the ground. Obviously this is not how the rule is interpreted.

How would this play be ruled in NCAA and NFHS (I guess you'd have to shift the player slightly so he's not down short of the goal line)? I've seen it suggested by some of the TV personalities that this play is a touchdown everywhere but the NFL, but I've also read other threads on here that suggests people would call this incomplete in their games as well.

Lastly, is there a way the rule could be "fixed" so that plays like this and the Dez Bryant play from a few years ago can be correctly ruled touchdowns without creating too many unintended consequences? This is one of a few rules in the NFL that comes up frequently enough and has to be explained frequently enough that the rule should probably be better aligned with "common sense."

As a general point of view, the same way a catch is viewed in the NFL is done the same way at the NCAA level. Many video examples of how it is to be ruled at the NCAA level. Also, I also use similar positions about catch-no catch in NF games. The other levels just define it better, but the philosophy is the same.

Peace

One could argue that, but it would be in complete contradiction to what plainly happened - he lost control of the ball immediately when he hit the ground. There is no possession until the catch is over, this wasn't terribly controversial.

If I saw it bounce/shift/move as the WR hit the ground like this, it would be incomplete in any game of mine. Now, admittedly, seeing it is the rub, but if seen, it's incomplete. Could it be "fixed"? I don't know, I suppose...but there will be a bunch of cheap turnovers if merely holding it under control for a millisecond is the standard. I think the problems caused by this "fix" would be worse than what we have today.

Apply the rule only if the goal line or end zone is involved? I completely understand what you're saying. I just feel like the majority of people watching expect this to be, and feel it should be, a touchdown. The Dez Bryant play probably more so than this one, but it's been a while since I've watched that one.

Maybe it was my viewing angle, but it looked the same in both real time and slow motion. A 4 step sequence where; Receiver 1. possessed the live ball in flight, 2. Touched the ground (in the field of play) with his knee, 3. twisted his body and dove for the goal line, 4. Which the ball crossed BEFORE touching the ground, where TOTAL possession is questionable.

In my world, where the ball was (in relation to the goal line) when his knee hit the ground (and he maintained possession) would be the succeeding spot - likely short of the goal. In the NFL world, I'm only a spectator with an inconsequential opinion.

My issue with the reversal was that there was no replay that shows the ball touching the ground.

I could be wrong, but I think the vast majority of football fans think this play should be a touchdown.

Is it possible to tweak the rule to allow plays such as this or the Dez Bryant play from a few years ago to be touchdowns without lowering the bar for a catch to the point that a lot of what are currently incomplete passes turn into catch/fumbles and possibly turnovers? Is it possible to tweak the rule only on plays involving the endzone?

In this particular play as with the Dez Bryant play, I agree with ajmc that I see a catch, contact with the ground and a separate motion to extend the ball over the plane prior to any loss of control, I believe that's what a lot of people who believe this should be a touchdown also see. They consider that to be a "football move."

I know using "common sense" to describe a rule book scenario isn't necessarily good practice, but it seems like the NFL has to come out with explanations for a lot of plays like this and taking a more "common sense" approach would be better for the game. Like it or not, there are people who look at this review and look at how long it took and wonder if the fix was in. I'm not suggesting that, but that's how a portion of the fan base will see it, especially since the much-hated Patriots were the team to benefit here.

As scrounge noted, this play isn't particularly controversial to those who know the rule as written and interpreted, but it certainly is to those expecting to be able to utilize "common sense" to judge the play.

"A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner."

Huh. NFL must define "runner" differently from how they used to (player in possession of a live ball), or else this provision is circular.

All I know is, efforts to take the judgment out of things that are ultimately judgment calls -- possession is one example -- are futile. Just as there's no such thing as "safe", but only degrees of safety, there's no such thing as being in control of a ball, only degrees of control.

Well, I suppose they could have a ball that incorporated a pressure transducer and then adopt some arbitrary criterion about having the player's grip increase the ball's pressure by that amount for that long, and a remote recorder to measure those numbers. It would prevent the next Deflategate too.

We already have a level of football played EXACTLY by the rules you describe, unfortunately it's played on an X-Box rather than a field, with actual humans. We should be careful what we wish for.

Really? I thought it was pretty clear it did from the replays I saw.

That was suggested in a cartoon on NBC ~30 yrs. ago. The audience took over the game by voting not only on officials' calls, but on the plays themselves. The officials & players revolted, so they fired them all & brought in a big electronic screen.

IMO- The NFL has certainly overcomplicated this rule.

With that being said, regarding NFHS rules, the Pittsburgh receiver made the catch, turned, and the ball crossed the plane of the GL. Once the ball crosses the plane, end of story, TD every friday.

Clarification: I realize the replay had his knee down prior to crossing the GL, but my explanation would be without the knee down, as this seemed to be the main point of this discussion.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/radSnZz7ubs" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

You make a good point, for sure.

I think the difference between the older videos and the two newer ones is that people see the would-be receiver making a motion to extend the ball to the goal line, which those observers view as an act beyond the catch. The term "football move" is often used, and I believe people think the extension of the ball towards the goal line qualifies.

Unfortunately I don't think these calls are made as consistently as they could be despite that intended lack of subjectivity in the rule. I think a tweak of some sort has to be made to introduce a little "common sense" into the rule. I think the majority of fans, when explained, understand why this particular play was ruled incomplete. I also think they believe it should be a catch. The rules should probably align more with that view, in my opinion. Ultimately it comes down to what the league and competition committee want to do, so we'll have to wait and see if they come up with anything that doesn't create even worse unintended consequences.

If a play was on the sideline, if you do not get two feet down, it is not a catch. Not sure why this is hard to understand if you are diving to the ground or get hit and the ball comes out. This is a similar process that a catch must be completed in almost every single way.

The standard is not what you see, the standard is what they are actually doing. Many plays which could be referenced this year show plays where passes were overturned by replay when reviewed. Unlike college, they do not automatically review every catch. They only review when the coach challenges the calls and when it is within the last 2 minutes of the half and every scoring play. That is it. So a play in the middle of the field is not reviewed unless a coach challenges that play or within the last two minutes. But I have seen many plays this year overturned similar to what has was done in the Pittsburgh game. And this is a media problem, not a rules problem. The media seems to not ever deal with the facts of the case in an accurate way. I am going to show a comment from ESPN about the rule.

Peace

Because on a play like this, people see him catch the ball and control it enough to reach it across the goal line. They view that level of control as possession regardless of how the rule is written.

They see a player with a knee down in-bounds, control of the ball and the ball breaking the plane. It makes sense that people would see that as a touchdown, even if it isn't by rule. The rule is a little counter-intuitive that way.

Who cares what people think they see. They see their emotions, which we cannot officiate by or under those positions. The rule is defined just like how you enforce a penalty. If it was not that way, then everyone would be complaining about what the rule should be anyway. Who cares what "people" that have no skin in the game think? Even coaches and NFL people know the rule and that is why you do not see coaches and administrators in the NFL complaining.

OK, this is not college football. The play would not be over even in college. If you are not giving the ball to the other team if that ball pops out at the 50-yard line, then you cannot tell me "It was a catch." Because if that ball popped up in the air outside of the goal line, you advocating giving a fumble or interception on some level? I doubt that seriously.

The NFL did not want cheap fumbles or catches. That is what Bill Polian said on ESPN the other day and said that was the case some years ago. And when I was a kid and saw the very first play, I never thought that was a catch, but the rules did not seem to be as defined.

Peace

So, just to clarify. You think the rule should remain the way it is?

Regardless, if you were to try to "fix" it, how would you go about doing so?

And just for the record, nobody was complaining at the time that it should have been called incomplete either. For the most part people now are in agreement that the correct call was made given the way the rule is written, but most people also seem to think it's a bad rule. Obviously this isn't based on any kind of scientific poll, but the majority of comments I've seen have been from people who think this play should be a touchdown and that the rule needs to be fixed so it is one.

One other call that comes to mind from earlier this season. This play was originally called a catch and then down by contact. Inexplicably the call was changed to an interception after review, presumably due to the misuse of the same rule we're discussing right now.

https://youtu.be/TOPRop4_R4A?t=233

Yes, because I remember the change. I remember the controversy. I remember the reason why there was a rule in place. And until you give a better solution, then there is no reason for a change.

And just for the record, nobody was complaining at the time that it should have been called incomplete either. For the most part people now are in agreement that the correct call was made given the way the rule is written, but most people also seem to think it's a bad rule. Obviously this isn't based on any kind of scientific poll, but the majority of comments I've seen have been from people who think this play should be a touchdown and that the rule needs to be fixed so it is one.[/QUOTE]

Nobody? We are in this discussion because this was a national discussion about what should be done for this rule. I highly doubt you even post here about this if there was no discussion of this rule all over the media. Because the media loves to rant about things as if they are tragedies and often do not want to address issues that are right in front of their face.

He was not going to the ground. He was not only making a football move and turned up but was hit by another player. And the media complained about this play as well. So who cares what people say? You will not satisfy anyone if they want to act ignorant.

Peace

If you want a really stark contrast on this, take the example of the 1970 AFL playoff game where Blanda's pass was caught by a receiver in the air just short of the goal line, he took one step in the field of play backing into the end zone, and as he broke the plane of the goal line with the ball, an opponent hit him from behind and knocked it loose: touchdown. It didn't seem he'd gotten his other foot down, and contact with the opponent prevented that before the ball broke the plane, but its doing so while in his grasp was ruled to have not only killed the ball but caused the loose ball to end in his possession. Probably had that play occurred clearly in the field of play, the status of the ball is still in doubt as he's coming down, so it's an incomplete pass. Nowadays on the goal line I think they'd have the status of the ball and therefore the score in abeyance and rule it incomplete there as well, since, after all, it's the score that kills the ball, not merely having it in one's grasp while airborne beyond the goal line.

Well, now, see, that's the problem with writing a provision using language like "going to the ground" that doesn't distinguish between merely falling and deliberately lunging.

Why is this different than any other possession issue in the end zone? If he stepped a foot on the end line or sideline in the EZ, this would not be an issue. So now breaking the plane without any hit does not matter? Again, people want it both ways and that is the problem.

Peace

One reason/difference (in NFHS) might be NFHS 8-2-1 &1a; "Possession of a live ball in the opponents EZ is always a touchdown.

1a. "It is a TD when a runner advances from the field of play so that the ball penetrates the vertical plane of the opponent's goal line.".

2-32-13, provides: "A runner is a player who is in possession of a live ball or is simulating possession of a live ball."

Yes, and you have to complete a catch to have a TD. ;)

All interesting references, but nothing says when possession is on a catch. Simply having the hands on the ball does not complete possession.

Also, the NFL has the right to determine when you have possession. To the NFL you must complete the process of the catch which includes surviving the ground or surviving the hit. There are many that feel we should use the same standard in NF games and many do. I was always taught not to have cheap fumbles or catches.

Peace

What's your opinion on this one?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zXjqAzugiaY?start=21" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's why I specified NFHS, which also describes both a "Catch" (of a pass) and "possession", with definitions that have been constant for decades.

NFHS 2-34-1: "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it."

NFHS 2-4-1: "A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight, and first contacting the ground inbounds while maintaining possession of the ball (recently expanded to include) or having the forward progress of the player in possession stopped while the opponent is carrying the player who is in possession and inbounds.

NFL rules are designed for extraordinary talented and experienced professional athletes, who are grown men in a profit centered environment, with unique objectives, whereas NFHS rules cover Interscholastic and "sandlot" athletic development level programs. Each rule code is designed for it's specific participants.

Did the ball hit the ground? Video did not support that it did.

Peace

Great reference, if you do not survive the ground (or the hit) in my game, you do not get a catch in my game. That is my crew philosophy and we do not have replay to tell us otherwise. That simple. No cheap fumbles or catches, especially in the end zone.

Peace

This is an HS game. You calling this a TD?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UpJCmIRjPSw" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

The BJ was a lot closer to the action than this camera, and had a much better view to assess possession. He didn't think it was a TD, why would I (or anyone) question his judgment? Neither you, or your crew, "give" anyone a catch, when a player completes a catch according to the rules under which the game is being played, you, or your crew, have the opportunity to confirm, or reject, whether a catch was completed. Either a peg fits the hole, or it doesn't, you don't get to adjust the hole as you see fit.

It clearly hit the ground on the last angle.

This is also a call in an NF (High School State Finals)

No one said a word about this call.

BTW, this was in 2011.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zbRQNvnsxKI" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Jesse James demonstrated more control of the ball than the receiver in that video.

Here is another play that resembles the play this past weekend.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R6mjKOXVHVY" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

Thanks for saying that and the problem with your point. You want a subjective situation to be ruled possession and he did not complete the part of the rule that is required. He was going to the ground and did not "survive the ground." In the play I showed, the play had a player take a few steps while trying to bring the ball in and clearly lost the ball after being hit. Now in that play, I showed for the high school game, if we use the standard that you and others would like or suggest the rule says, he took several steps. Nothing about his actual control of the ball or when did he have control is up for major debate. So every play we would debate if he had control and in the Jesse James play, we would have plays similar and debate when or if he had control. Again, he did not survive the ground, the rule is clear. We would be debating other plays like this all the time and have no line to judge. Surviving the ground standard at least requires you come all the way to the ground and after to demonstrate control. This is why the rule will not likely change and if it does, we will be back here debating the plays in question.

Peace

I didn't see any loss of control whatsoever

From this film view, I couldn't tell WHEN the received lost control of the ball, or if he ever secured control and possession, before losing control of the ball.
However, the covering official seemed to be in excellent position to fully observe the action, completely and appeared to rule the pass incomplete.

I see no reason to question his call, however had the call gone the other way, I would still give preference to the calling officials view, and judgment, on THIS call.

For the record, many football plays are similar, BUT no two have ever been exactly alike in every aspect, so how a different, even extremely similar, play may have been decided has no DIRECT bearing on this play..

Consistency is a laudable objective, and reviewing similar plays can be very helpful from a mechanics, rule interpretation, positioning and observation perspectives, but seeking an ENTIRE "one size fits all" is a delusion.

I'm surprised to see people struggle with understanding what is meant by "going to the ground as part of completing the catch". When I first heard about this play I figured there would be some uncertainty over whether he made a move before lunging for the end zone. When I finally I saw I was surprised how obvious he was going to the ground the entire time. That is one thing that is not in question at all. Because of that, none of the other actions matter. You can make arguments over whether or not the ball hit the ground when it was loose or if there is enough evidence to obviously overturn the call on the field, but neither are horrible calls. They are just calls and someone paid to make that decision made an unbiased decision.

Someone commented the NFL has made the catch rule too complicated. I would argue they have greatly simplified it. This play is a great example. Very simple...go to the ground, maintain control, catch. Without that you have all kinds of subjective decisions to make on this play.

If you really want a play like this to be a TD you need to remove catch/no catch from replay. I agree to the naked eye in real time on the field, this was a catch. Thanks to technical rules and HD cameras with multiple angles, the bobble is detected and this becomes an incomplete pass. You have to accept that decision if you are going to have replay.

I think the argument in favor of this being a TD is that he clearly made a clean catch with control of the ball and lunged for the endzone, only losing control after the ball had broken the plane. People are seeing that as a football move. Given the inconsistent way that replay decisions have been made this year, with several decisions not being supported by video, it should be no surprise that high-profile calls are getting even more attention than usual. Also, technically, he survived his "initial contact with the ground," which was his knee, then lunged for the endzone, losing the ball after that.

I do think it's worth exploring if there's a way to modify the rule so that this play and others like it are touchdowns, as they should be, in my opinion. The key would be to do it in such a way that it's not going to lead to a bunch of cheap turnovers in the field of play. Perhaps a rule change that only applies to the endzone?

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

To argue you that you are adding a lot of additional information that is irrelevant. He's clearly going to the ground as part of making the catch so the only thing you have to worry about is if he maintains control and the ball doesn't hit the ground if it comes loose. If that doesn't happen you have a catch. Now you are dealing with location of the ball when the knee hits under NCAA/NFHS rules. If you are going to change the rule to somehow allow these to be catches you are going to be adding a ton of subjectivity to the call and a lot more inconsistency. I'd rather not go back to that.

It's not irrelevant at all. It's the issue people have with the rule. I completely understand the rule as interpreted. It's also clearly not consistently applied, and a rule that has plays such as this not be a touchdown is flawed. If this rule were applied consistently, maybe it could be acceptable, but it's not.

I think a better option needs to be put in place, even if it increases subjectivity. The supposed objectivity that comes with the rule in its current form is undercut by poor replay decisions from New York.

I disagree with the lack of consistency. If you understand what the rule means it is significantly more consistent. Announcers and fans feel it's not consistent because they don't know the rule. I feel the same way when I watch basketball. It seems like block/charge and other fouls are very inconsistently called. But I'm smart enough to know I don't understand the rule and how it's called.

When I sit in association and study group meetings and we discuss catch/no catch plays there is a lot less debate about them, especially when the receiver is going to the ground. It takes away so many things you may have previously considered. Did he maintain control? Did the loose ball hit the ground? If the first question is yes and the second question is no you have a catch. It's as simple as that. Bang bang hits that cause the ball to come loose, incomplete. There is still some gray area but it is so much smaller and that leads to consistency. If you don't feel it's there you are buying what the commentators are selling.

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

You're missing the point. I understand the rule. Replay's determination of what is or isn't "surviving the ground" is inconsistent.

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.

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.

It is not consistent when they get a good angle to see the entire play. Part of this is based on the angles the videos show.

Peace

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.

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

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.

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.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iLqMCT7yTVY" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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.

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?

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.

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

But that has nothing to do with this distinction. It may, however, have to do with the relative skills of their respective officials.

I don't know why they'd want to particularize it like that. But then, I don't know why they wanted a different rule for when the receiver's body is moving downward from when the receiver's moving in any other direction.

For instance, they could've written a rule allowing recovery of a loose ball by a player on the ground who's getting up only if the possession "survives getting off the ground". So if you're getting onto your feet while picking up a loose ball, and the ball comes loose while your body is still rising, that'd be non-possession as well. Makes as much sense as the one about a player going to the ground -- and apparently going to the ground applies even after some part of the body other than the hands or feet touches the ground, as long as the player's body still has a net motion downward.

You CANNOT dig yourself out of a hole, by digging downward. The existing rules determining "a catch" weren't absolutely perfect, but served really well for a long time.

Has this adjustment clarified anything, improved, or clarified, everyone's understanding and acceptance of what's necessary? If you scratch the smallest, most benign blemish, long enough or hard enough intending to remove it, you can make it bleed of infected.

Sometimes the most sensible way to eliminate a hole, is simply to put all the dirt back in, and accept it's a potential, but rarely problematic, hole.

I agree with all this...I think. There's no way to get away from the factual judgment of whether a player has a good enough grip on the ball (and the requisite body parts on the ground in bounds). You can put in various extra criteria in certain cases in an attempt to get rid of that judgment, but all you'll succeed in doing is transferring part or all of the judgment of one factual cirumstance to another, and complicating the whole procedure.

Some players falling while catching or recovering a ball hit the ground and lost it or caused it to touch the ground. In some cases the officials ruled that possession preceded the ball's popping out or the player's hitting the ground, and in other cases that there had been no possession, and they may have been correct or incorrect in either case. Other people looking at the same play frequently would disagree with their judgment, as is part and parcel of such determinations. But it looked like seeing whether the ball subsequently hit the ground or came loose might've been a good proxy in some cases for whether the player's grasp was good enough (so good that some people in this thread would use it as a way to rule in cases in Fed or NCAA), and in some cases easier to see, so the NFL adopted a provision holding the judgment of possession in abeyance until that determination could be made. But that turns out not to be an easier thing to see in many cases. The judgment has merely been shifted to a question of whether the player was "going to the ground" during the catch, or a catch occurred before the player started "going to the ground". Not to mention cases wherein under the new rule a player rolls over on the ball as part of a motion to the ground with the ball in hands, and you'd theoretically have to see whether the ball touched the ground while you're screened from seeing it by that player's body.

BTW, the previous wording as part of possession, "[enough] to perform any act common to the game", I had to laugh at. NCAA got rid of that language long ago because they realized it didn't make any judgment easier, while NFL kept it.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iLqMCT7yTVY" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Nobody has anything to say about the suggestion in that video?

I really don't think it's any more subjective than the rule as it currently exists.

There is nothing to say because I do not care what uneducated people have to say honestly.

This is actually someone in the know talking about this issue. Some guy creating a video is nice, but not relevant.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZbM0Gu3f5Rk" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

It seems strange that you would ask for an alternative and then decline comment when one is presented.

The video also does a good job of making my point on the failures of replay on these calls.

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.

I was not asking for an alternative, you were not giving one while complaining. This is your beef. I like the rule and so does the NFL. I see why the rule is the way it is and like the current rule. Your position would cause other issues which are against the very thing Bill Polian addressed.

Here is also the thing, people clamor for replay until it is actually executed. This is the beat that fans wanted, now you complain when they do exactly what you wished for. Ironic isn't it?

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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

I watched and comprehended the whole thing. It's still incredibly subjective.

I like it, except for the concept of distinguishing action out of bounds from that in bounds. Somebody makes a late hit out of bounds, we don't want that to be discounted because it was out of bounds; etc. A determination of dead ball spot or touchdown can be held in abeyance pending evidence of a catch, so I don't see the problem he does with that part. But he's right on when it comes to his initial critique and fix.

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.
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.

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.

If that were uniformly true, that player would not have touched the ball to the ground, thinking he had scored a touchdown. When he reached the ball over the goal plane, he had to know that move would end with the ball on the ground.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

If you say so. :rolleyes:

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:

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.

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

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

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