A catch is a catch

[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.