A catch is a catch

[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..

[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/...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.

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]

#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?

[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?