Catch Rule

[Merlin]

This is such a simple fix.

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

Agreed. Two feet down with possession used to be a catch. Everything went outta whack after that Rams/Bucs game in the '99 season playoffs.

If the ball moves a little upon hitting the ground who cares, it doesn't matter. If it gets out of his control and no whistle it's a fumble. SIMPLIFYING the rules also helps the refs, who get effed every year with more rules and BS they have to maintain in real time while everyone nukes their decisions with endless replays at one/one-millionth speed. Simplify it ffs.

 

[EastRam]

It's really very simple. They should have never messed with the rule after the Bucs game.

If the ball touches the ground IT SHOULD NOT BE A CATCH.

If the ball is moving with the receiver in the field of play as he goes down FINE. As long as the ball never touched the ground.

If the ball is moving and the receiver lands with any part of his body out of bounds "even with two feet or knee in bounds" on any part of the field then NO CATCH.

As far as a runner is concerned the " ground can't cause a fumble" is perfectly fine. Because 99.9% of the time the runners knee or elbow or whatever is down by contact. The only exception where the ground could cause a fumble is if the RB goes down without being touched and the ball pops out. Then the ground causing a fumble is fine.

The TE catch in the SB was legit. The catch at the back of the EZ was not a catch and should have been overturned as the current rule is written.

 

[Ramzheart]

.

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, freak 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.

.

Yeah, I think some of the conversation on surviving the ground was muddied because of end zone situations. A runner just needs to break the plane to score, where as a receiver needs to maintain throughout.
I would rather have them change the fumble-pylon rule!!

 

[XXXIVwin]

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.

Agree.

Excellent concept, excellent wording.

“More than momentary and fleeting” is necessary and appropriate.

I have taken the time to fully understand the 2017 rules defining a catch. (A lot of interesting discussion in this thread from a while back:

http://www.ramsondemand.com/threads/now-thats-a-crap-call.52745/page-8#post-1013136

Although I understand the reasoning and the implementation, the 2017 rules stink.

The Dez Bryant play? Should be a catch. The Jesse James play? Should be a catch. The Calvin Johnson play? Should be a catch.

There will always be close plays and judgment calls. But let’s get back to the basics. If it looks like a catch, it probably is. This “going to the ground” and “football move” and “surviving the ground” cause too many unnecessary problems.

 

[Merlin]

There will always be close plays and judgment calls. But let’s get back to the basics. If it looks like a catch, it probably is. This “going to the ground” and “football move” and “surviving the ground” cause too many unnecessary problems.

Definitely. As soon as you tie conditions to the ball and the ground all of a sudden you get all manner of complications. IF the receiver has possession (ball secured) with two feet down, in that instant it should be a catch whether he's midfield or falling out of bounds.

Doing that will definitely increase fumbles a little. But scoring should go up in general with it, and that's good for the league tbh. Just simplify things so calls can be consistent.

 

[The Ramowl]

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.

On the Jesse James catch/no catch, your new rule would clearly make it a catch i agree. My issue is with the plays where the football move will be less obvious, but still a bit of a football move. You will have that blurry line again, and in the end you have just displaced the problem.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/20/troy-vincent-outlines-potential-catch-rule-changes/

Troy Vincent outlines potential catch-rule changes
Posted by Mike Florio on March 20, 2018

When it comes to fixing the catch rule, it appears that the NFL didn’t go back to square one. However, the league apparently has decided to put the bus in reverse.

“We worked backward,” NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent told Mark Maske of the Washington Post. “We looked at plays and said: Do you want that to be a catch? And then we applied that to the rule.”

So what changes could be made?

“Slight movement of the ball, it looks like we’ll reverse that,” Vincent said. “Going to the ground, it looks like that’s going to be eliminated. And we’ll go back to the old replay standard of reverse the call on the field only when it’s indisputable.”

That last line is interesting, to say the least. Recently, the NFL changed the language of the process for overturning a ruling on the field, but not the actual standard. “Indisputable visual evidence” of an error became “clear and obvious evidence” of a mistaken call. The bar, however, should have been no higher or lower.

The reality is that, in the first year that the league office had final say over replay review, the man for whom the procedure was created — Dean Blandino — left the NFL for FOX. His replacement, Al Riveron, often struggled to apply the proper standard in 2017, overturning decisions regarding the catch rule based not on deference to the ruling on the field but a fresh, frame-by-frame look at the play.

In Super Bowl LII, Riveron upheld a pair of Eagles touchdowns that, based on the standard he used during the season, quite possibly would have been overturned.

The best solution to the catch rule would be to exempt entirely from replay review the third element, which requires the player to have the ball for some amount of time before it officially becomes a catch. Since that’s a subjective decision, it should be treated the same as judgment calls like pass interference.

Any proposed rule changes by the NFL’s Competition Committee will be subject to approval by all owners, with at least 24 required to vote in favor of the alteration. If not enough get behind a given proposal, nothing will actually change.

 

[VegasRam]

Now make PI 15 yards, and all's right with the world.

 

[EasyE]

My $0.02:

If the ground can't cause a fumble then it can't cause an incomplete catch. It's simple.

Also, if ball just has to break the goal line, then a receiver should not need any feet down either.....can't we just get this right?

 

[RamFan503]

Just simplify things so calls can be consistent.

This is the best thing they could possibly do. When they made that whole football move in an attempt to define a catch, my response was, “uh oh”. All I saw was adding more judgement that had to be done in a fraction of a second rather than clear up ANYTHING. As it turned out, it was even worse. They couldn’t even figure it out on replay.

Just make it simple. Possession with two feet down would be fine IMO. If a receiver reaches for more yards and fumbles without making a “football move” or doesn’t MAINTAIN possession through the ground, ok, it’s a fumble if both feet are on the ground. If the ball is moving in his hands, that’s a replay thing. But having it be subjective even on replay is stupid.

 

[fanotodd]

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.

I think you're both right. The Rule, to me, is quite clear. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to make sure the peramiters have been satisfied when seen at actual speed. I can live with that if they get the call right.

Where I have a problem is at the goal line. I thought once the plane is broken by the football the play is over and it's a TD. That is not the case when it comes to a reception. That's where most of the controversies come in.

If he has established possession prior to breaking the plane, then it should be a TD, regardless of what happens when he hits the ground--just like a RB.

 

[kurtfaulk]

This is the best thing they could possibly do. When they made that whole football move in an attempt to define a catch, my response was, “uh oh”. All I saw was adding more judgement that had to be done in a fraction of a second rather than clear up ANYTHING. As it turned out, it was even worse. They couldn’t even figure it out on replay.

Just make it simple. Possession with two feet down would be fine IMO. If a receiver reaches for more yards and fumbles without making a “football move” or doesn’t MAINTAIN possession through the ground, ok, it’s a fumble if both feet are on the ground. If the ball is moving in his hands, that’s a replay thing. But having it be subjective even on replay is stupid.

yeah, but think back to why they introduced the rule. wrs were getting lit the fuck up as soon as they possessed the ball and it popped out, which in turn became a fumble. nobody was happy with that. making a football move was a great rule introduction.

.

 

[XXXIVwin]

wrs were getting lit the freak up as soon as they possessed the ball and it popped out
.

DB’s will continue to try to do this regardless of possession rules,right?

I agree that possession should not be “instantaneous” as soon as feet touch the ground.
I honestly think that most football viewers would reach consensus about “how much time is needed to demonstrate control and therefore define possession.” It’s “about” one second of time. Point being, most people could watch a replay and agree, saying either “yup, he caught that” or “nope, he didn’t hold on long enough, no catch.”

Big news for me is the getting rid of the “going to the ground”aspect. That’s the cause of most of the problems. Troy Vincent said that under the new rules, the Dez play and the Jesse James play would both be legal catches. If so, that would be a big improvement.

 

[Rainram]

Now make PI 15 yards, and all's right with the world.

And how about when an offensive player fumbles the ball and it goes out of the endzone...?? The other team gets it on the 20?? I don’t get that at all.

 

[RamFan503]

yeah, but think back to why they introduced the rule. wrs were getting lit the freak up as soon as they possessed the ball and it popped out, which in turn became a fumble. nobody was happy with that. making a football move was a great rule introduction.

.

What will change or has changed about a WR being lit up? And I never heard anyone complaining that there were fumbles being caused. "Making a football move", however, has been a constant source of frustration since no one can fully grasp what that even means - especially the refs and announcers.

DB’s will continue to try to do this regardless of possession rules,right?

I agree that possession should not be “instantaneous” as soon as feet touch the ground.
I honestly think that most football viewers would reach consensus about “how much time is needed to demonstrate control and therefore define possession.” It’s “about” one second of time. Point being, most people could watch a replay and agree, saying either “yup, he caught that” or “nope, he didn’t hold on long enough, no catch.”

Big news for me is the getting rid of the “going to the ground”aspect. That’s the cause of most of the problems. Troy Vincent said that under the new rules, the Dez play and the Jesse James play would both be legal catches. If so, that would be a big improvement.

While I agree with what you're saying and those two catches should have been good, the problem with your definition of possession is that it is anything but a definition. As it is, a receiver going out of bounds only has to tap both toes and have possession for the catch to count. I get that if a defender hits the receiver in bounds right when he catches the ball and happens to have both feet on the ground, there should be some sort of line between incomplete pass and a fumble but possession IMO has to be defined by some sort of measurement.

The idea behind the "football move" concept was understandable but it turned out to be undefinable.

 

[Merlin]

So if they do the right thing and simplify a catch as "two feet down with possession" there's really only one condition that becomes a concern for me...

What if they come down head first with the ball? Which, btw, is what happened in the playoffs between the Rams & Bucs that started this whole thing.

In that event my suggestion would be that the shoulder or back counts as two feet down, and in that case must also meet possession. Meaning the player has to have possession of the ball in that moment. So if he's crashing down on his shoulder, say, and the ball hits the ground with his hands securely around it, it should be a catch. If it moves in that condition only, that would determine a non-catch.

 

[1maGoh]

With all this debate going on about you, you'd think this was a difficult issue.

Why can't the NFL get this right?

 

[OldSchool]

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/alriveron/status/976505088192798720

 

[LACHAMP46]

I'm close to @Legatron4 ....two feet down....and a football move....and to me that's anything after two feet are down. So....