The Catch Rule

[mraynrand]

The basic problem with replay is that its been given authority to get the call on the field 100% correct rather than provide conclusive proof that the call on the field was botched. They could solve a lot of problems by changing that aspect as well.

Wait, what are you saying here? I think that "The call on the field stands unless there is visual evidence to overturn" is about as good as you're gonna get. There are some cases where you know that, had they called it the other way, you couldn't have overturned that either, but the bottom line is that we want the call on the field to stand unless replay shows otherwise, right?

[pbmax]

Wait, what are you saying here? I think that "The call on the field stands unless there is visual evidence to overturn" is about as good as you're gonna get. There are some cases where you know that, had they called it the other way, you couldn't have overturned that either, but the bottom line is that we want the call on the field to stand unless replay shows otherwise, right?

In baseball, if they use replay to determine whether a foul ball call was right, the stated objective (confirm the call) is the same, but the logistics of baseball and its cameras tell you that nearly every time you will be able to determine whether the ball was fair or not under excruciating slo mo from multiple angles. So when you are watching it happen on TV, the call is being made on screen. If there is no clear angle, the call on the field stands. Otherwise, there are no picayune elements that make up a foul ball, whether or not a blade of grass was leaning fair or foul, whether that blade was half green or half white, top or bottom.

There are very few debates about conclusive proof on these calls, because video does a good job of illustrating what the call should have been. Football has much better luck with receivers being in bounds or not, which was one of the original impetuses for replay review.

But in football, two other things happen:

1. The important action (ball in hands, under player, possible hitting ground, possibly moving) are only sometimes viewable depending on angle and technology of the camera and production.

2. Replay challenges can be made about things that the refs have not called at all. If the refs rule it was a sideline catch, the coach can challenge whether the receiver had earlier stepped out of bounds and was ineligible to make first contact with the ball.

#2 is often (though not always) a new call, ref may or may not have seen the step. #1 becomes a decision in and of itself, whether or not you can infer tiny details that support one call or the other. Details of the catch rule are confusing because suddenly a new vocabulary becomes used to describe the action in slow motion.

Mostly to blame in #2 is TV. Where announcers prattle on and on without any idea what replay people are actually looking at. Even the former replay guys get this wrong. They invent new standards as they go that go beyond the rulebook. I actually agree with the going to the ground rules as written. They should dump the control part that stems from the Bert Emanuel catch/no catch in the playoffs. Ball not on ground? Catch. Ball touches ground? No catch. Much easier.

[mraynrand]

1. The important action (ball in hands, under player, possible hitting ground, possibly moving) are only sometimes viewable depending on angle and technology of the camera and production.

Ball not on ground? Catch. Ball touches ground? No catch. Much easier.

1. This is the essential difference between baseball and football, not picayune rules. Is the ball in the glove before the runner hits the bag? What does 'in the glove' imply Simple - that the ball was in the glove and didn't come out. Not hard to see because six guys aren't piled on top blocking your view. It's the nature of the sports to be different in this way.

Catch: Your revised rule would result in a far higher rate of drops - any touching of the ground? But only when the receiver is 'going to the ground' right? Not certainly after the receiver had caught the ball, made a 'football move' and then went to the ground and had the nose of the ball touch the ground as he rolled before being touched? LOL, I don't think there are perfectly simple answers for some of these conundrums. Making rules understandable, calls easier to make and consistent is the best you can hope for.

[pbmax]

1. This is the essential difference between baseball and football, not picayune rules. Is the ball in the glove before the runner hits the bag? What does 'in the glove' imply Simple - that the ball was in the glove and didn't come out. Not hard to see because six guys aren't piled on top blocking your view. It's the nature of the sports to be different in this way.

This is true for catches versus foul balls.

However, baseball doesn't use instant replay for balls and strikes. And balls and strikes suffer from some of the same problems as the catch rule:

1. Is the black part of the strike zone?
2. How much of the ball must cover the edge of the plate?
3. Where, exactly, is the midpoint between your waist and your armpit?
4. What about a crouching batter?

[pbmax]

Catch: Your revised rule would result in a far higher rate of drops - any touching of the ground? But only when the receiver is 'going to the ground' right? Not certainly after the receiver had caught the ball, made a 'football move' and then went to the ground and had the nose of the ball touch the ground as he rolled before being touched? LOL, I don't think there are perfectly simple answers for some of these conundrums. Making rules understandable, calls easier to make and consistent is the best you can hope for.

In my world, if the ball touches the ground at all during a catch is no catch. Once you secure the ball (tuck it, two hands, hold it over your head) if it touches the ground its a fumble.

Bobble during catch, before secure, then touch ground? Incomplete.

Bobble after a catch, after secure, then touch ground? Fumble.

[woodbuck27]

In my world, if the ball touches the ground at all during a catch is no catch. Once you secure the ball (tuck it, two hands, hold it over your head) if it touches the ground its a fumble.

Bobble during catch, before secure, then touch ground? Incomplete.

Bobble after a catch, after secure, then touch ground? Fumble.

Yes this with the exception of considering the catch and 'reaching the ball' to the Goal Line.

If after a catch the ball crosses the plane of the Goal Line it's a TD (not natta natta natta and the ground came into the play and caused a fumble).

Call it 'The Einstein Rule'.

“The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple.”

― Albert Einstein