Catch Rule

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
15,968
.

i've been seeing headlines that the nfl wants to simplify the catch rule.

then about half an hour ago i saw van pelt talking about it on sportscentre. saying they may take "surviving the ground" out of the rule.

then he started going on about previous examples like the dez catch.

but the best part, and the reason i wanted to post about it, was that he was saying people didn't know what a catch was anymore and brought up colinsworthless saying the ertz td in the superbowl wasn't a td. said worthless was one of the best in the business. hahaha. (how do these people have jobs?) then he showed a replay of the td and notes ertz caught the ball 6 yards out, took 3 steps then dove for the endzone. that if a good judge like worthless didn't know what a td was what hope do the rest of us have? hahaha.

and that is why espn is the worst network on tv. idiots quoting idiots. everyone on the planet knew that was a td except worthless and the guys in the booth that wanted the play reviewed. haha, worthless is one of the best in the business, fuck me.

anyway. just wait till they take surviving the ground out of the rules and see what a mess the catch rule will become. surviving the ground made it easier for the officials to officiate. now they will need to work out if the receiver controlled the ball while having two feet down. get ready for way more bitching in the coming seasons. everybody will still be saying they don't know what a catch is anymore.

.
 

The Ramowl

Starter
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
706
I actually think the rule is pretty clear (not necessarily fair, but clear).

My issue with the idea that surviving the ground wouldn't be necessary is this : in the current rules as far as I get them the point is that on any catch play, when the play is blown dead the catcher is in possession. The possibilities are :
- Surviving the ground, catcher in possession when blown dead
- Out of bounds with possession, same
- Catch on two feet, with or without run, catcher in possession when play is blown dead (or fumble, which is not in contradiction).

If we don't ask for the catchers to survive the ground it creates a hole in that whole logic. You then need to define possession by a minimal time of possession ? By the quality of the control ? it becomes quite hard.
 

Tano

Legend
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
8,844
Personally, I have always felt a catch should be defined as follows:

1) A person is deemed to have caught a football if they catch the football, control the football for a second(?), and then make a football move.

2) If a person does not make a football move, then the person must survive the ground.

I think that would simplify the catch rules sufficiently for everyone.

Again it would be judgemental as to what a football move but if it is too hard to tell if he makes a football move, then rule 2 comes up.

As to how long the person controls the football is up in the air. I think a second is long enough.

Others may disagree with me on how long the control should be.
 

The Ramowl

Starter
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
706
Again it would be judgemental as to what a football move but if it is too hard to tell if he makes a football move, then rule 2 comes up.

Exactly, that's a blurry line. What is not blurry per example is that fact that Jesse James in that game against the Pats doesn't have his balance when he catches the ball, doesn't get his balance back, therefore needs to survive the ground. What constitutes a football move ? What is the minimum amount of movement needed ?
And it sounds like nitpicking but sooner or later you will have that huge play determining a playoff spot that ill be exactly in the area of "was it really enough to be a football move ?".

I think the current rule is clearer
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
22,896
My $0.02:

If the ground can't cause a fumble then it can't cause an incomplete catch. It's simple.
The ground always could cause a fumble though, that was always a false statement.
If a player hits the ground in possession of the ball without being touched by a defender, and the ball comes loose, it was always a fumble

That said, I sure hope they fix it. Every catch overturned looked like a catch to me. Always seemed to me like they created the rule just to create controversy
 

Psycho_X

Legend
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
11,146
I don't know what the solution is but the current rule is not it. Personally, I thought how it was before the latest change a few years ago was fine. Yes, it caused a couple of controversial moments over the years but it didn't make every single person question what an actual catch is every game. Having a couple of controversial catch/noncatches every year beats a dozen every damn week.
 

DaveFan'51

Old-Timer
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Messages
18,666
Name
Dave
" How about this as the Rule, Two hands on the Ball, and It's a Catch! Simple!"(y);):D
 

Tano

Legend
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
8,844
Exactly, that's a blurry line. What is not blurry per example is that fact that Jesse James in that game against the Pats doesn't have his balance when he catches the ball, doesn't get his balance back, therefore needs to survive the ground. What constitutes a football move ? What is the minimum amount of movement needed ?
And it sounds like nitpicking but sooner or later you will have that huge play determining a playoff spot that ill be exactly in the area of "was it really enough to be a football move ?".

I think the current rule is clearer
Jesse James leaps into the end - that is a football move period - no blurred lines there

I don't care if he doesn't maintain his balance, he made a football move.

Nowhere in my definition does it say "maintain balance and then make a football move"

It may be judgemental on the referees part as to a football move but if we have controversy we have controversy but I bet this is still easier to determine.
 

Tano

Legend
Joined
Jun 11, 2017
Messages
8,844
In addition, I think it would be optimal for the NFL to review films of every questionable catch that was under review in the past couple years and state unequivocally "under the new rules" which one is a catch and which one is not a catch and then give those examples to both the referees and the general public. That way we will as a fan have some guidance as to what is a catch and what is not a catch.

Of course there will be catches or non-catches that refs will miss but that is what instant replay is for. And the people in the review booths in NY will have past examples to base their decisions on.

I bet there will be very few new plays that has no prior play as guidance.
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
10,736
Name
Scott
I actually think the rule is pretty clear (not necessarily fair, but clear).

My issue with the idea that surviving the ground wouldn't be necessary is this : in the current rules as far as I get them the point is that on any catch play, when the play is blown dead the catcher is in possession. The possibilities are :
- Surviving the ground, catcher in possession when blown dead
- Out of bounds with possession, same
- Catch on two feet, with or without run, catcher in possession when play is blown dead (or fumble, which is not in contradiction).

If we don't ask for the catchers to survive the ground it creates a hole in that whole logic. You then need to define possession by a minimal time of possession ? By the quality of the control ? it becomes quite hard.
It is clear. The problem is that it can't be enforced in real time. It takes replay to get the call correct.
If the call can't be made on a regular basis by an official, it should be removed.
 

FarNorth

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
3,060
I will be very disappointed if all the NFL does is tweak the ground part of a screwed up rule. The league has wandered into the swamp and can't get out. Was there ever such confusion about a simple concept of a catch when the passing game evolved?

They need to go back to fundamentals, to something simple. Define a catch in terms of what it is, not some other related action. The present rule simply compounds and confuses the issue. A catch is simply demonstrated possession and control, something more than momentary or fleeting, such that if then dropped it's a fumble.

It's judgement call, but so what? Everything is anyway. Some exercise of judgment can't be avoided. The result at least is that if it looks like a catch, it is. It can still be reversed if clearly wrong. But at least the argument is about the essential point: did the receiver have possession and control? And fans will all understand exactly what the argument is about.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
22,896
" How about this as the Rule, Two hands on the Ball, and It's a Catch! Simple!"(y);):D
So you're saying this ISNT a catch??

459482246.jpg
 

Corbin

THIS IS MY BOOOOOMSTICK!!
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
11,099
F4CCE8E9-B915-4CA9-9370-D485ECB880E4.jpeg


ROTFL 37 months later this is a catch..:rolllaugh: Couldn’t have happened to a better team.

.... Well maybe Whiners but that’s another story for another day.

Wonder how long it’ll for them to admit we got cheated in SB36?
 

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,427
Name
Wes
This is such a simple fix.

Ball caught, two feet down, catch. Nothing matters after that second foot touches the ground.
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
15,968
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18

I simply find it perplexing how anyone could not see that as a td. Mind boggling. These people do not understand the rules of the game. Don't care what they've done in their lives, they don't understand the rules.

.
 

kurtfaulk

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
15,968
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
This is such a simple fix.

Ball caught, two feet down, catch. Nothing matters after that second foot touches the ground.

There's no way they're going back to that. The amount of fumbles that would happen when the receiver catches the ball and gets lit up by a defender will increase exponentially.

.