The Catch Rule

[Joemailman]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22257695/concerned-roger-goodell-wants-nfl-catch-rule-changed


Herd w/Colin Cowherd
✔
@TheHerd
"I'm not just somewhat concerned, I am concerned... It's particularly in the going to the ground that I think is creating a lot of the confusion." — NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on the 'Catch Rule

Goodell revealed that he convened a summit earlier this month of five Hall of Fame wide receivers and several coaches to discuss the rule. The timing coincided roughly with the league's most recent catch controversy, the Week 15 play in which Pittsburgh Steelers tight end Jesse James was ruled to have dropped a potential game-winning touchdown against the New England Patriots.

James was unable to maintain control of the ball throughout the process of going to the ground, a portion of the catch rule that appears to be of particular concern to Goodell. The intent of the rule is to give officials a clear and bright line for judging a catch, but Goodell made clear he now considers it problematic.

Details of the league's plan to tweak the rule are not yet clear. But Goodell indicated it will focus on instances like the James play -- or those involving Detroit Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson and Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant in previous years -- where receivers initially appear to have control of the ball while falling the ground. An operating theory, Goodell said, will be the idea that "fans want catches."

[Joemailman]

They basically changed a rule to make the official's job easier. That was a mistake. Officials need to be able to determine whether a catch was made without changing the definition of what a catch is.

[ThunderDan]

Makes me concerned when a rule is tweaked to bring “excitement”. Goodell said that and is worrisome. Make the rule to make sense and be easily decided. Not by what brings excitement, I am guessing that is a euphemism for more scoring.

[swede]

I haven't had a problem with the rule since I finally understood it. The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass. The player is obligated to maintain control if the player goes to the ground while catching a pass. Goodell's comments are unhelpful. What possible change to the rule would be an improvement?

[wist43]

I haven't had a problem with the rule since I finally understood it. The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass. The player is obligated to maintain control if the player goes to the ground while catching a pass. Goodell's comments are unhelpful. What possible change to the rule would be an improvement?

3 femenists could be impaneled to judge whether any action committed during the catch might be construed as sexual aggression, or otherwise sexually inappropriate behavior toward women.

If deemed a penalty, the punishment will be months of public shaming and the loss of one's career :roll:

[MadScientist]

They basically changed a rule to make the official's job easier. That was a mistake. Officials need to be able to determine whether a catch was made without changing the definition of what a catch is.

The rule must have a clear definition. Otherwise replay becomes impossible to use fairly and consistently. Any changes must not be subjective.

[Pugger]

I haven't had a problem with the rule since I finally understood it. The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass. The player is obligated to maintain control if the player goes to the ground while catching a pass. Goodell's comments are unhelpful. What possible change to the rule would be an improvement?

Perhaps they should chuck the rule about the ground not causing a fumble too? If you lose the ball before the whistle is blown too bad for you.

[pbmax]

I haven't had a problem with the rule since I finally understood it. The ground can't cause a fumble but it can cause an incomplete pass. The player is obligated to maintain control if the player goes to the ground while catching a pass. Goodell's comments are unhelpful. What possible change to the rule would be an improvement?

It won't and he is an idiot. What he will end up with is a contradictory variety of catch/no catch variation because the rule will be broad. "Fans want catches" its the dumbest possible reading for the position fans are in. I wanted a turnover for that "catch" by Larry Fitzgerald or Jerry Rice.

The rule makes eminent sense when read or explained. But when control has to be defined in slow motion replay, it gets weird.

"Sure the ball moved under him, but he had a hand under it."

"The nose of the ball touched the ground, but he had one hand covering it and the ball doesn't seem to move."

They should dump or redefine control so that its easier to see in replay. If you do not see one or two things that define control (or lack thereof), its not a catch. 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.

[pbmax]

3 femenists could be impaneled to judge whether any action committed during the catch might be construed as sexual aggression, or otherwise sexually inappropriate behavior toward women.

If deemed a penalty, the punishment will be months of public shaming and the loss of one's career :roll:

Good football content there.

[pbmax]

Perhaps they should chuck the rule about the ground not causing a fumble too? If you lose the ball before the whistle is blown too bad for you.

This is the kind of thing that used to make sense, but I am not sure it does anymore. The whistle used to stop everything and early whistles were early whistles.

But with refs swallowing the whistle whenever there is a possible question about possession (to let the play run its course if turnover) the whistle often gets blown late.

[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?

[mraynrand]

If we don't like the rule as currently stands, what is the alternative? My inclination is to change the rule in the end zone - some form of control in the end zone means TD and the play is over (like when the running back breaks the plane and then someone knocks the ball out - did he go to the ground 'with control'? Who cares, he scored the TD) Same should apply to a reception - you have control in the end zone (hold the ball, break plane) or catch with control in the end zone with feet down you have a TD and the play is over - nothing after matters.

[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.

[texaspackerbacker]

The intent of the rule as it has been in recent years is to standardize things. It either is or it isn't - virtually no judgment call involved. That's the way it should be. The fact that there have been very very very few perceived injustices over the years is greatly outweighed by taking that judgment and the innate unfairness that goes with it out of the equation.

[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.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Just allow Stick-um back and the vast majority of these catch issues go away.

[gbgary]

i don't have a problem with the rule as it is but if they want to take away the survive the ground part i'd be ok with that too.

[QBME]

Just allow Stick-um back and the vast majority of these catch issues go away.

Zactly - hello Lester Hayse!!

[ThunderDan]

Just allow Stick-um back and the vast majority of these catch issues go away.

The gloves that the WR wear now a days are almost like using stick-um. We were getting a pair for my son and I tried a pair on. My son was throwing the ball and I could easily 1 hand catch the ball away from my body.

I told my son he could only wear the gloves during his games and not during practice. He needs to learn how to catch the ball without that much of an advantage.

[red]

The gloves that the WR wear now a days are almost like using stick-um. We were getting a pair for my son and I tried a pair on. My son was throwing the ball and I could easily 1 hand catch the ball away from my body.

I told my son he could only wear the gloves during his games and not during practice. He needs to learn how to catch the ball without that much of an advantage.

I’ll second this, I tried on a pair at dicks in Green Bay 2 or 3 years ago and was shocked

How anyone wearing these could not catch a ball that hits them in the hands if just ridiculous

[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.

[pbmax]

I would be fine with stick 'um and gloves.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I’ll second this, I tried on a pair of dicks in Green Bay 2 or 3 years ago and was shocked


FIFY

[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