A catch is a catch

[Harlan Huckleby]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/03/20/nfl-sets-new-definitions-for-controversial-catch-rule/

I just saw that the NFL is gonna get rid of that stupid "control the ball as you go to the ground" bullshit. Please let it be true. The height of absurdity is when the refs have to analyse what is going on out of bounds. A catch is when you catch the ball.

[mraynrand]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/03/20/nfl-sets-new-definitions-for-controversial-catch-rule/

I just saw that the NFL is gonna get rid of that stupid "control the ball as you go to the ground" bullshit. Please let it be true. The height of absurdity is when the refs have to analyse what is going on out of bounds. A catch is when you catch the ball.

I am going to make a football move.

[Joemailman]

I am going to make a football move.

Can you define that in ways that Harlan will understand?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's too good to be true. They'll find a new overly-complicated rule.

[pbmax]

Never in the history of the NFL has a stupider statement been made and this time it wasn't Goodell.


The competition committee, at the behest of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, is seeking a common-sense approach to what should be a relatively straightforward issue of whether a receiver makes a legal catch.

Mike Renfro would like to speak with you Mark Maske.

[pbmax]

I am sure Packer's fans are certain Dez caught the ball.


The new rule will eliminate the requirement that a receiver who is in the process of going to the ground while making a catch must maintain control of the football while on the turf to be awarded a legal catch.

The replay standard for overturning an on-field ruling of a catch will be indisputable video evidence rather than clear and obvious.

“The Dez Bryant play, that’d be a catch” under the new rule, Vincent said, mentioning a series of controversial non-catch calls over the years. “The Jesse James play, that’d be a catch.”

Indisputable and the ball touching the ground will definitely not cause ANY consternation about the calls.

These idiots think this will result in fewer controversies.

Its like trying to eliminate static with the squelch control.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I am sure Packer's fans are certain Dez caught the ball.



Indisputable and the ball touching the ground will definitely not cause ANY consternation about the calls.

These idiots think this will result in fewer controversies.

Its like trying to eliminate static with the squelch control.

It beats the hell out of parsing out a rule.

[pbmax]

It beats the hell out of parsing out a rule.

I agree that can get out of hand, but so will trying to discern HOW much ball movement when hitting the ground is indisputably not a catch.

Good luck. Parsing a rule doesn't end with changing of the rule. That just moves the debate.

[texaspackerbacker]

You have to have some kind of a standard - not just make it a judgment call. I don't see any way this could not be complicated. "A catch is a catch" ...... but what IS a catch? A guy tips it up before he goes out of bounds but doesn't actually get it under control until he's a foot or two out of bounds? How about a yard or two out? Or tip it high in the air and finally snags it behind the bench? You got to draw the line somewhere. And how about if the guy is trying to control it a 2 or 3 yards out of bounds - can the DB lay him out 2 or 3 yards out? It's complicated.

[pbmax]

College rule. Ball under control with one foot down. Catch. Everything after that is fumble or completion.

[hoosier]

Toe count or does it have to be a whole foot?

[mraynrand]

College rule. Ball under control with one foot down. Catch. Everything after that is fumble or completion.

exactly. It should be control with two feet for NFL. No "football move" Refs can judge whether possession was long enough (i.e. if the ball is knocked away during the catch) and replay can't overturn.

Whatever they do, they should use the word "process" liberally. And "impactful" - that's good too.

[Fritz]

You have to have some kind of a standard - not just make it a judgment call. I don't see any way this could not be complicated. "A catch is a catch" ...... but what IS a catch? A guy tips it up before he goes out of bounds but doesn't actually get it under control until he's a foot or two out of bounds? How about a yard or two out? Or tip it high in the air and finally snags it behind the bench? You got to draw the line somewhere. And how about if the guy is trying to control it a 2 or 3 yards out of bounds - can the DB lay him out 2 or 3 yards out? It's complicated.

Good points. How about they make it like basketball, so a guy could leap from inbounds to out of bounds, and still catch the ball as long as he does so before his feet hit the ground? We think it'll be simpler, but our brains have been re-wired with the years of studying what a catch is. We can't go back to the 80's, where we all knew because we didn't think much about it.

[pbmax]

Toe count or does it have to be a whole foot?

Toe, heel, arch, tarsals, all parts of foot count.

[pbmax]

exactly. It should be control with two feet for NFL. No "football move" Refs can judge whether possession was long enough (i.e. if the ball is knocked away during the catch) and replay can't overturn.

Whatever they do, they should use the word "process" liberally. And "impactful" - that's good too.

See I think we don't want them to think about long enough for possession. Its going to be uneven. I want to reward knocking the ball loose on a catch, even if almost simultaneously, with a fumble.

[mraynrand]

See I think we don't want them to think about long enough for possession. Its going to be uneven. I want to reward knocking the ball loose on a catch, even if almost simultaneously, with a fumble.

I'm fine with this. But there has to at least be a discernible catch before the ball gets punched out. Unless they make some stupid rule like a "football move" it's going to be subject to the Ref's judgement. The emphasis could simply be that they accept minimal control as a completed reception.

How about this: Receiver leaps for ball, catches it, and ball is knocked out before the receiver returns to touch the ground. Under PBMax/Rand rule this is a catch and fumble. Would the league ever agree to this?

[pbmax]

I'm fine with this. But there has to at least be a discernible catch before the ball gets punched out. Unless they make some stupid rule like a "football move" it's going to be subject to the Ref's judgement. The emphasis could simply be that they accept minimal control as a completed reception.

How about this: Receiver leaps for ball, catches it, and ball is knocked out before the receiver returns to touch the ground. Under PBMax/Rand rule this is a catch and fumble. Would the league ever agree to this?

I am OK with control and a body part down before completion. And that's it.

But you are still going to have slo-mo debates about control when the second foot hits the ground. That Corey Clement TD in the SB was a hugely questionable catch (which I was entirely delighted to see it called and ruled a TD). Its not entirely certain he had control for the first foot down (right) because he barely had a grip then bobbled a bit through second step (left) regained control finally before the third step (right toe) looked OOB.

I say it a catch because he maintained possession without it ever touching the ground and I am fine with control before he went OOB.

But then I am saying a lot of bobbling catches (including Larry Bleeping Fitzgerald) are catches when they head OOB.

[pbmax]

People who think the rule change will end debate or clear up what is a catch are in for a rude awakening. Again.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RvfdbhQ5tk

[pbmax]

Mike Tanier @MikeTanier
Other language recommended to clarify the catch rule:

Intent to receive
Connectivity
Catchyness
Catchitude
Establishment of bipedalism
Heisenberg Catchosity Principle.

@EGTuna @EGTuna
How could you forget Schroedinger’s Catch?!

[pbmax]

Ross Tucker @RossTuckerNFL
"The ability to perform such an act". At least we removed any ambiguity. [thumbs down] Ross Tucker added,

Mike Tanier @MikeTanier
"He could have done that."
"In fact, he could have caught that."
"So, by strict interpretation of the rules, it's a catch."


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY0-EqFVQAAKBRY.jpg:large

[Harlan Huckleby]

People who think the rule change will end debate or clear up what is a catch are in for a rude awakening. Again.

He bobbled the ball - no control. Not hard. (rude gesture)

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am OK with control and a body part down before completion. And that's it.


Sounds good. It doesn't have to be any more complicated. I like one foot down. You get more exciting games with more acrobatic catches.

[pbmax]

Exactly. Its reversing what people didn't like.

Mike Garafolo @MikeGarafolo
We talked on @NFLTotalAccess last night about how this isn’t simplifying or clarifying the rule. It’s letting Dez/Calvin/Jesse James catches pass the eye test. There will will be gray area and confusion. But if you ever tweeted “Dez caught it” do not let me catch you griping!

[pbmax]

He bobbled the ball - no control. Not hard. (rude gesture)

So you would overturn Corey Clements' TD catch in Super Bowl?

[Harlan Huckleby]

So you would overturn Corey Clements' TD catch in Super Bowl?
I guess I would.

Even though Corey Clements is something of a hero of mine. He caught shit in college for getting into a fight in a elevator with a Bruce Lee wannabe, all caught on security cam. Clements is seen cowering behind a female rent-a-cop, building security.

Clements could have slaughtered Bruce Lee. (The asian guy took his shirt off for the confrontation, stuck his hairless chest out.) I liked that Clement restrained himself. And the campus buzz was that Clements said something racist to the guy's girlfriend and should be expelled. It was a drunken 3AM college hijinx, and I thought Clements was fine. The girl (hot asian with fuck-me outfit) was squeeling with excitement as her boyfriend defended her honor. Beautiful scene, hollywood ready.

Afterwards, you see Clements and Bruce Lee's best friend embracing - no harm done. Good clean racial fun.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd have to look hard at the replay of Corey Clement's "catch" maybe it did have clear control.

It is always going to be hard to know whether control is established in some cases.

[mraynrand]

He bobbled the ball - no control.

I think that's the correct call. With the stipulation that if called a catch on the field, you really have to have confidence in what you're seeing on the replay overturns it...

[pbmax]

I think that's the correct call. With the stipulation that if called a catch on the field, you really have to have confidence in what you're seeing on the replay overturns it...

I am not in favor of overturning that call. But for the sake of giving refs concrete items they can observe, bobbling is the easiest to spot outside of toe tapping.

[mraynrand]

I guess I would.

Even though Corey Clements is something of a hero of mine. He caught shit in college for getting into a fight in a elevator with a Bruce Lee wannabe, all caught on security cam. Clements is seen cowering behind a female rent-a-cop, building security.

Clements could have slaughtered Bruce Lee. (The asian guy took his shirt off for the confrontation, stuck his hairless chest out.) I liked that Clement restrained himself. And the campus buzz was that Clements said something racist to the guy's girlfriend and should be expelled. It was a drunken 3AM college hijinx, and I thought Clements was fine. The girl (hot asian with fuck-me outfit) was squeeling with excitement as her boyfriend defended her honor. Beautiful scene, hollywood ready.

Afterwards, you see Clements and Bruce Lee's best friend embracing - no harm done. Good clean racial fun.

It's really true that not much of any good happens at 3 AM.

[ZachMN]

Two problems. One. Instant replay. The cameras are too good now and we see things in s-l-o-w motion that at normal game speed seem one way and in slow motion seem another.
Two, subjectivity. Like the legal realm, they are trying to use words to make subjective situations uniform under any and all circumstances- “Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth...." -Nietzsche.

Give the refs or the death star the ultimate authority on the really gray plays and get on with the game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Give the refs or the death star the ultimate authority on the really gray plays and get on with the game.

Well, they mostly do that now by giving heavy weight to the call on the field. If you are calling for an end to instant replay/review you are a cranky Luddite. (Some day soon there will be transmitters inside the football and computers making even more decisions. Guess that is besides point here.) Also, references to Nietzsche and other characters from Hogan's Heroes are out of bounds.

[mraynrand]

“Words are but symbols for the relations of things to one another and to us; nowhere do they touch upon absolute truth...." -Nietzsche.

This can't be true.

[pbmax]

Well, they mostly do that now by giving heavy weight to the call on the field. If you are calling for an end to instant replay/review you are a cranky Luddite. (Some day soon there will be transmitters inside the football and computers making even more decisions. Guess that is besides point here.) Also, references to Nietzsche and other characters from Hogan's Heroes are out of bounds.

In disputable visual evidence was actually supposed to take care of most of this.

Problem is Zach is right, cameras are better than rules. I think the going to the ground rule, as well as the bobble we discussed earlier, two feet (or one foot) down and not touching the ground are the best guides because those are easily caught by the eye and camera.

But when everyone watches the same replays over and over again, what is a catch becomes an entirely different question.

Calvin Johnson was just an example of taking a good rule and stretching it beyond any sense.

[ZachMN]

Well, they mostly do that now by giving heavy weight to the call on the field. If you are calling for an end to instant replay/review you are a cranky Luddite. (Some day soon there will be transmitters inside the football and computers making even more decisions. Guess that is besides point here.) Also, references to Nietzsche and other characters from Hogan's Heroes are out of bounds.

Never called for nor implied we should get rid of instant replay

I will say that I am a Luddite and anachronistic in certain ways and how you deduced that is fascinating..:D

[ZachMN]

This can't be true.

LOL Not surprised you would say that given your an objectivist...;) having fun with you so don't take that seriously now...

[ZachMN]

In disputable visual evidence was actually supposed to take care of most of this.

Problem is Zach is right, cameras are better than rules. I think the going to the ground rule, as well as the bobble we discussed earlier, two feet (or one foot) down and not touching the ground are the best guides because those are easily caught by the eye and camera.

But when everyone watches the same replays over and over again, what is a catch becomes an entirely different question.

Calvin Johnson was just an example of taking a good rule and stretching it beyond any sense.

Exactly my point.

[Vincenzo]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/03/20/nfl-sets-new-definitions-for-controversial-catch-rule/

I just saw that the NFL is gonna get rid of that stupid "control the ball as you go to the ground" bullshit. Please let it be true. The height of absurdity is when the refs have to analyse what is going on out of bounds. A catch is when you catch the ball.
Thank the good Lord the NFL finally changed the "control the ball as you go to the ground" bs.

Remember now that it all boils down to the following 3 things:

1) Control
2) 2 Feet down or another body part
3) A football move such as:
a. A third step
b. Reaching/extending for the line to gain
c. or the ability to perform such an act

[channtheman]

Why do we need number 3? Why not just control the ball and have 2 feet down. I'm unsure what number 3 does besides add confusion.

[mraynrand]

Why do we need number 3? Why not just control the ball and have 2 feet down. I'm unsure what number 3 does besides add confusion.

exactly. The first two are sufficient to 'possess the ball' (and I would argue that two feet down isn't alway necessary). No different than a RB after taking the handoff. (I know the handoff itself is different than a pass, because if it's dropped it's live as opposed to a pass which is dead if it hits the ground). Still, once the RB has the ball, he doesn't need to make "a football move" to 'possess it'


"the ability to perform such an act"

There are some players who fail at this part of step three even before they walk on the field. Think of Hundley and a 25 yard pass.

[hoosier]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DY0-EqFVQAAKBRY.jpg:large

#3 is a puzzle. So now refs are supposed to judge whether a receiver could have made a "football move" if he wanted to? This new recommendation is worse than the rule it would be replacing.

[mraynrand]

#3 is a puzzle. So now refs are supposed to judge whether a receiver could have made a "football move" if he wanted to? This new recommendation is worse than the rule it would be replacing.

3.3 is essentially saying that the ref can judge that the player made the catch, so that he could then do something after the catch. Which makes 3.1 and 3.2 irrelevant. (Not to mention all of 3.x).

Part 3 is pointless if the catch isn't made. I agree that Part 3 is actually worse than 'going to the ground' if you are trying to simplify what a catch is. At least the going to the ground rule was trying to solve a problem whereby the ball was loose or came loose during a particular kind of reception. Part three here is employed as ex post-facto confirming evidence of a catch, but is not part of the catch itself.

[pbmax]

#3 is about removing time as the standard for a catch with something more obvious (the old 2 steps after catching the ball, the old version football move). With #3 you literally can juke or feint your way to a qualified completion.

The problem, as with two steps or the old football move, is that athletes are marvelous inventors and someone has a move or way of securing the ball that will be obviously indicative of a catch but will come with less than 3 steps and will not obviously be a "move".

I also notice that a 3rd step has appeared. Which means the two feet down count as steps. So you will have an announcers saying he has the ball, there is one foot down, I mean step, there is the second foot/step and then does he get the third step down to the ground before the ball bobbles?

[pbmax]

Does anyone have any doubts that this new rule makes James non-catch a catch and TD?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0N3qaqXymY

[mraynrand]

#3 is about removing time as the standard for a catch with something more obvious (the old 2 steps after catching the ball, the version football move). With #3 you literally can juke or feint your way to a qualified completion.

Yes, they want something after the catch to confirm the catch


I also notice that a 3rd step has appeared. Which means the two feet down count as steps. So you will have an announcers saying he has the ball, there is one foot down, I mean step, there is the second foot/step and then does he get the third step down to the ground before the ball bobbles?

Can't get a third step or a football move if you are just getting two feet down and falling out of bounds, right. Oh wait, he "has the ability" to make a football move. See? That's all you need. So can a receiver bobble or drop the ball after the 'ability' has been determined? If in bounds it's a fumble. If during a sideline catch (say, knocked out before hitting the ground by a d-back) then it's still a completion.

[mraynrand]

Does anyone have any doubts that this new rule makes James non-catch a catch and TD?

Of course. But the end zone is a another matter. Just like a running back can extend with possession and score - and then lose the ball, so should a receiver. Once the receiver has possession in the end zone the play is over. It's just that now 'going to the ground' is a 'football move' Or is it?

[pbmax]

Of course. But the end zone is a another matter. Just like a running back can extend with possession and score - and then lose the ball, so should a receiver. Once the receiver has possession in the end zone the play is over. It's just that now 'going to the ground' is a 'football move' Or is it?

Exactly. You catch the ball in the end zone and get popped. What is the football move?

Read strictly, you need to tick off 3.a, b or c to make it a TD.

Sideline will be even weirder if they drop the ball after second toe drag.

[woodbuck27]

This is an interesting topic and hopefully the NFL does something to lessen the controversy of something that needs to be simplified, yet more than "if it looks like it's a catch then it's a catch" must be a result of the resolve.

I felt that controversial call need not have been in the Steelers Vs Patriots game last season (2017). The Field Officials saw Jesse James grab the ball (the Pass) and move and reach for the Goal - Line. As he reached the ball for the Goal - Line the ball crossed the plane of that Goal - Line, and the Field Official called a TD !

Stop the video right there and it's simple.It's a TD; and the Steelers in all likelihood are winning that game. NOPE ! The NFL Catch Rule complicated what might have been simple.

You shouldn't bring the Dez Bryant controversial 'NO TD call' into this discussion; as that all took place on the playing field inside of the playing fields lines. It's apples and oranges.

Catching balls and side lines (along the side of the field) and in the End Zone are different matters. Two step and possession after the catch and going to the ground gets rather complicated again, as the 2017 Season Catch (Reception) Rules stood.

In my view of the Jesse James play and scoring. Clearly The Pittsburgh Steelers were robbed; and it's the Catch RULE that complicated something to our eyes and the Field Official (s) eyes that looked simple.

*** I believe in such instances and whenever reaching the ball to and over the Goal - Line and the plane is broken by any portion of the football it should be a TD. That takes away the was it a catch and the ball 'coming to the ground'.portion of the Catch Rule.

That takes this away: If you're going to the ground you have to hold onto the ball when the ball hits the ground ...

" Going to the ground trumps lunging/reaching to try and get extra yards" and eliminate these words ** or score a TD.

** Once a TD call is made 'it's six more points' up on the scoreboard for the Team that had that last possession, and it's too simple. One day (maybe?), the NFL will come up with a simpler Rule like the one foot down Rule; and it's a Catch with possession.

" If it looks like a catch, it will be a catch. If it doesn't look like a catch, it won't be a catch." That's MOOT. Too often Field Officials miss too much. Especially when those Game Officials aren't full time Pro's, just complicates the matter of human error.

I want HC Appeals. I want Video Review as a part of my NFL games.

I wrote this not checking what if anything has been actually resolved and this "what's a catch in the NFL" controversy that shouldn't be such.

*** I believe that the 'keep it simple' policy is best (specifically and reaching the ball for a TD).

[mraynrand]

This is an interesting topic and hopefully the NFL does something to lessen the controversy of something that needs to be simplified, yet more than "if it looks like it's a catch then it's a catch" must be a result of the resolve.

I felt that controversial call need not have been in the Steelers Vs Patriots game last season (2017). The Field Officials saw Jesse James grab the ball (the Pass) and move and reach for the Goal - Line. As he reached the ball for the Goal - Line the ball crossed the plane of that Goal - Line, and the Field Official called a TD !

Stop the video right there and it's simple.It's a TD; and the Steelers in all likelihood are winning that game. NOPE ! The NFL Catch Rule complicated what might have been simple.

You shouldn't bring the Dez Bryant controversial 'NO TD call' into this discussion; as that all took place on the playing field inside of the playing fields lines. It's apples and oranges.

Catching balls and side lines (along the side of the field) and in the End Zone are different matters. Two step and possession after the catch and going to the ground gets rather complicated again, as the 2017 Season Catch (Reception) Rules stood.

In my view of the Jesse James play and scoring. Clearly The Pittsburgh Steelers were robbed; and it's the Catch RULE that complicated something to our eyes and the Field Official (s) eyes that looked simple.

*** I believe in such instances and whenever reaching he ball to and over the Goal- Line and the plane is broken by any portion of the football it should be a TD. That takes away the was it a catch and the ball 'coming to the ground'.portion of the Catch Rule.

That takes this away: If you're going to the ground you have to hold onto the ball when the ball hits the ground ...

" Going to the ground trumps lunging/reaching to try and get extra yards" and eliminate these words ** or score a TD.

** Once a TD call is made 'it's six more points' up on the scoreboard for the Team that had that last possession, and it's too simple. One day (maybe?), the NFL will come up with a simpler Rule like the one foot down Rule; and it's a Catch with possession.

" If it looks like a catch, it will be a catch. If it doesn't look like a catch, it won't be a catch." That's MOOT. Too often Field Officials miss too much. Especially when those Game Officials aren't full time Pro's, just complicates the matter of human error. I want HC Appeals. I want Video Review as a part of my NFL games.

I wrote this not checking what if anything has been actually resolved and this "what's a catch in the NFL" controversy that shouldn't be such.

*** I believe that the 'keep it simple' policy is best.

"I believe that the 'keep it simple' policy is best." - all evidence to the contrary.

BTW, about 1/5 of NFL refs are now full-time.

[Harlan Huckleby]

#3 is about removing time as the standard for a catch with something more obvious (the old 2 steps after catching the ball, the old version football move). With #3 you literally can juke or feint your way to a qualified completion.

I knew a simpler rule was too good to be true. Why worry about time at all?

In wrestling, there used to be a similar problem. A "takedown" required establishing control. But what is control? Hard to say exactly. So a couple years ago they decided that control would be instantaneous. You didnt have to prove that your opponent was your bitch or anything. You just had to get in position to cornhole him. I'm speaking loosely, but the rule change worked wonderfully.

Same philosophy could be applied to football. As soon as you've grasped the ball, or even trapped it against your chest - boom, gotta catch. What is wrong with that? The ball has to come to rest relative to the player's grasping hands.

[mraynrand]

I knew a simpler rule was too good to be true. Why worry about time at all?

In wrestling, there used to be a similar problem. A "takedown" required establishing control. But what is control? Hard to say exactly. So a couple years ago they decided that control would be instantaneous. You didnt have to prove that your opponent was your bitch or anything. You just had to get in position to cornhole him. I'm speaking loosely, but the rule change worked wonderfully.

Same philosophy could be applied to football. As soon as you've grasped the ball, or even trapped it against your chest - boom, gotta catch. What is wrong with that? The ball has to come to rest relative to the player's grasping hands.


Great post. And they could call an incomplete pass a 'half-Nelson'

[channtheman]

I knew a simpler rule was too good to be true. Why worry about time at all?

In wrestling, there used to be a similar problem. A "takedown" required establishing control. But what is control? Hard to say exactly. So a couple years ago they decided that control would be instantaneous. You didnt have to prove that your opponent was your bitch or anything. You just had to get in position to cornhole him. I'm speaking loosely, but the rule change worked wonderfully.

Same philosophy could be applied to football. As soon as you've grasped the ball, or even trapped it against your chest - boom, gotta catch. What is wrong with that? The ball has to come to rest relative to the player's grasping hands.

My dad recalls often that way back it was instantaneous. Players basically had to have 2 hands on the ball and it was a catch. Not sure if he is misremembering or not, but it would interesting if we came full circle on what constitutes a catch.

[Fosco33]

I'm all for simplifying the game. I like college rules like one foot and their OT approach myself.

But all the cowboy fans saying they'd have beat us in the playoffs were drunk on stale koolaid. There was ample time on the clock for Pack to still win imo.

[pbmax]

I'm all for simplifying the game. I like college rules like one foot and their OT approach myself.

But all the cowboy fans saying they'd have beat us in the playoffs were drunk on stale koolaid. There was ample time on the clock for Pack to still win imo.

No way they score from the half foot line.

#DE-FENSE!! #DE-FENSE!! #DE-FENSE!!

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2766874-nfl-passes-simplified-catch-rule-with-unanimous-32-0-vote?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=nfl

NFL Passes Simplified Catch Rule with Unanimous 32-0 Vote

KYLE NEWPORT ... MARCH 27, 2018

" ...According to NFL Network's Ian Rapoport, the new catch rule passed by a 32-0 vote. Here are the new guidelines, per NFL.com:

"1. Control of the ball.

2. Two feet down or another body part.

3. A football move such as:

* A third step

* Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain

* Or the ability to perform such an act" ... "

[mraynrand]

OK so it went through. So if you gain control going to the ground and the ball comes out (without being touched) that’s a fumble.

[pbmax]

I'm all for simplifying the game. I like college rules like one foot and their OT approach myself.

But all the cowboy fans saying they'd have beat us in the playoffs were drunk on stale koolaid. There was ample time on the clock for Pack to still win imo.

You now, I think this has merit beyond making it an easy call. If the ball hits one hand and any other body part, its a catch. It hits the ground or comes loose? Fumble.

Almost can't be screwed up and easy to review. Lost more fumbles and catches. Completion percentage would skyrocket.

Its either that or get rid of replay.

[pbmax]

OK so it went through. So if you gain control going to the ground and the ball comes out (without being touched) that’s a fumble.

I still want to know what they think about Chris Carter grabbing the ball, toeing the sideline and falling out of bounds. Technically, not a catch now unless his toes are a football move.

[mraynrand]

I still want to know what they think about Chris Carter grabbing the ball, toeing the sideline and falling out of bounds. Technically, not a catch now unless his toes are a football move.

It's spelled out - Ability to perform such an act. You pretty much got your wish - based on that final part you have instantaneous possession. What will be really interesting is how they distinguish between a pass defensed and a catch and forced fumble. Knife edge.

[pbmax]

It's spelled out - Ability to perform such an act. You pretty much got your wish - based on that final part you have instantaneous possession. What will be really interesting is how they distinguish between a pass defensed and a catch and forced fumble. Knife edge.

Did they address this kind of catch specifically? Because while I can see toes as "ability to perform an act" its also just falling down in a certain position.

[mraynrand]

Did they address this kind of catch specifically? Because while I can see toes as "ability to perform an act" its also just falling down in a certain position.

It doesn't matter. A 'football move' includes "The Ability to Perform Such an Act". I don't know how they can interpret that any other way than if you have the first two criteria - control of ball and a legit contact with ground (two feet or body part) - the catch is completed. For example, you have a knee on the ground and are being contacted by the defender and control the ball, you are obviously down by contact after the catch. In this case, you can only fulfill the third criteria by "The Ability to Perform Such an Act" (that is, perform a 'football move'), because you are instantly down by contact without ever making a football move. As I said before, Part 3 is only there to give ex post facto justification for a catch call (mostly during replay). But ultimately the new rule just moves the position of the controversy. Controversy will now be, must only be "control of ball". And the most obvious knife edge for the distinction is pass defensed versus catch and forced fumble, but incomplete pass versus catch and fumble will also be controversial if a receiver makes an apparent catch untouched and then loses the ball going to the ground.

[pbmax]

^ I would assume you are correct except that they LOVE to not make things plain as day, as this would be.

Ability to perform such an act, I think, will be a substitute for time enough, and will be nebulous and endlessly debated.