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/...al-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.