Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Cowboysfan8

Roger wants to change the catch rule

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22257695/concerned-roger-goodell-wants-nfl-catch-rule-changed

 

Please Roger, get this right. I'll forgive some of your past bull#### (maybe).

We can hope, right?

They should take a page from the XFL and forget this microspeed frame-by-frame physics.

Anytime a "catch" is in dispute, the alleged receiver and the closest defender will square off at midfield and wrestle for the ball until one of them establishes clear, undisputable possession.

No more grey areas, judgment calls, and drama is maintained "throughout the process of the catch."

Of course, we'll have 4-hour long games, but worth it to "get the call right," no?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck. The reason the definition is so convoluted is that there's no simple way to "Get it right". Everything is in a gray area. There is no clear, simple way to word the rule, or else it would have been done already. 

Unless they define "catch" and "possession" as: "any time any part of any player is in contact with the leather surface of the ball", we're going to have to have lawyerly rules, with multiple definitions, subsections, and special circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, candian fantasy guy said:

It seemed so much simpler when it was "ball in hand and a football move" was the answer. Now, no one knows the answer.

Jesse James TD is a catch in such a situation. The lunge to the goal line is a football move. Down via elbows. Done. Move on. There is no controversy. When did we get away from such a clear cut concept?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ShamrockPride said:

Jesse James TD is a catch in such a situation. The lunge to the goal line is a football move. Down via elbows. Done. Move on. There is no controversy. When did we get away from such a clear cut concept?

When we could watch every catch, each of which has different dynamics, in super-slo-mo from 5 different angles. There's no way to get rid of the controversy as long as we do that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Roger needs to stop putting his mitts on everything. 

I agree

But i would really like to see the catch rule somehow made better than it is now. It's a joke at the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about two hands on the ball in the end zone.  Once that happens it’s a TD.  Anything after that is moot, just like a runner can’t fumble after breaking the plane.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

I agree

But i would really like to see the catch rule somehow made better than it is now. It's a joke at the moment

I'd agree with that. It's frustrating. I can't remember what game I was watching (maybe it was the James play) and the TE took the ball and clearly turned up field, later lost the ball. No catch. Absurd. I just have zero faith in Goodell to do this properly. I know everyone likes to talk about the flag and all that but IMO it's this bs which has really been turning people off of football.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Roger needs to stop putting his mitts on everything. 

Read what he's doing.  He brought in 5 hall of fame receivers and some coaches to look at film and discuss the issue.  An issue that many think needs to be redefined.   This is a good thing he's doing.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Read what he's doing.  He brought in 5 hall of fame receivers and some coaches to look at film and discuss the issue.  An issue that many think needs to be redefined.   This is a good thing he's doing.

Exactly. Just because Goodell has made some horrible mistakes doesn't mean this decision is a bad one. It needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ramblin Wreck said:

Read what he's doing.  He brought in 5 hall of fame receivers and some coaches to look at film and discuss the issue.  An issue that many think needs to be redefined.   This is a good thing he's doing.

Ok I'll stay open minded. If Goodell simply signs off on a process rather than doing it by his own fiat I'll like it better. But if it happens I can still imagine at least a year of confusion as the refs work through the nuances yet again. I know we'd all like to see the rule properly handled, like I said it's been ruining the game for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have made rules favoring offense for years.  Offense needs to pay this back now.  Its a catch if the receiver has stopped the flight of the ball and changed and controlled the balls path to coincide with that of the receiver.  if the receiver is in the process of going to the ground when the ball is first contacted the receiver must control the ball through the ground.  If the receiver has caught the ball and is being tackled the receiver needs to control the ball through the tackle to the whistle.  the ground can cause a fumble.  Hold onto the ball you overpaid prima donnas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caveman_Nick said:

How about two hands on the ball in the end zone.  Once that happens it’s a TD.  Anything after that is moot, just like a runner can’t fumble after breaking the plane.

I think everyone's intuition is that a receiver who lays out for the ball didn't really catch it if he gets two hands on it but drops it when he hits the ground. That's why the "going to the ground" part of the rule is there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me crazy and I’m in the minority, but I don’t have a problem with the catch rule as written. 

The issue is that refs don’t rule the same way consistently and the replay review process is not applied properly. 

The fact that fans confuse or don’t know that there are different rules for runners vs. receivers is on them. 

IMO, if they change anything, it should be to better explain how long after the receiver tucks the ball away before he has to survive the ground. If a player takes 3 steps but then loses the ball, that should be a catch. Sometimes they rule that he had started falling even with an extra step. Other times a receiver has the ball for a microsecond but they call it a catch. 

As far as replay goes, they should not have to review a play from 10 angles in Super Slo Mo over five minutes to determine the ball moved an eighth of an inch when the guy came to a stop 20 feet away. Have them look at the angles they have in real time speed, let them pick one or two to watch again, and make a ruling in 45-60 seconds. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Caveman_Nick said:

How about two hands on the ball in the end zone.  Once that happens it’s a TD.  Anything after that is moot, just like a runner can’t fumble after breaking the plane.

So one handed catches don't count until a 2nd hand touches the ball?  What if a second hand never touches the ball?  OBJ catch and then hand to official never using a second hand....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

A Pats homer not bothered by the current "rules" for catching a ball.

NO. WAY.

Why would it matter what team anyone roots for?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

A Pats homer not bothered by the current "rules" for catching a ball.

NO. WAY.

Just curious if Patriots fans are entitled to have an opinion on something.

Let's clear the air on some things. Did the Patriots get some breaks on plays ruled as catches or no catches this year. Yep.
Did the Patriots get some good fortune in plays being overturned by booth review. Yep. (Already said many times over that the replay process has gotten out of hand.)
Did the Patriots have plays reversed that originally benefited the Patriots. Also yep (but somehow those plays never come up in discussions about officiating and NE).

I have also said many times over that my personal biggest pet peeve with the NFL is they don't do anything consistently. Decisions should be universal. But that should mean . . .

There should be a uniform standard for what a catch is or is not in terms of how it is enforced.
There should be a uniform standard to apply to replay reviews.
There should be a uniform standard on how discipline, fines, and suspensions are doled out.
But there should be a uniform standard for team infractions and penalties as well.

If people want to point out that some questionable calls have gone New England's way this year, I am right there with you. But NE gets scrutiny and team penalties that other teams don't. Most times, when other teams skirt the rules they barely even get a warning. Gronk gets called for OPI more than anyone else in the league.

Personally, I don't care what any teams and any players do. Want to juice or take HGH, go ahead. Want to try to tape coaches signals (which seemed to be going on at the time), knock yourself out. Want to play with the ball inflated like a rock or as soft as a sponge . . . also don't care. want to re-position your linemen, by all means.

All I care is about what happens on the field. I don't care about the rules on whether Aaron Rodgers is or not allowed to be placed on IR again. I don't care if a player gets popped for PED's. I REALLY don't care about guys and their off field brawling, drunk driving, home life issues. All I care about is the game on the field on game day.

That being said, don't call one play a catch, another play an incompletion, and a similar play a fumble. Don't suspend Brady and take away a draft pick for screwing with the footballs but show other teams warming them up on the sideline and do nothing. Don't give one player a fine but another player a suspension for a similar hit on a defenseless player. Don't suspend a kicker a game for domestic violence but a RB 6 games. Unless you are a different RB and there is video and then that's way worse. I think people will get the point.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

As far as replay goes, they should not have to review a play from 10 angles in Super Slo Mo over five minutes to determine the ball moved an eighth of an inch when the guy came to a stop 20 feet away. Have them look at the angles they have in real time speed, let them pick one or two to watch again, and make a ruling in 45-60 seconds. 

I've been saying this for a while here. The catch rule is atrocious, but it's not the problem. The problem is instant replay. 

Here's how it needs to work: The NFL replay official in NY is signaled that a replay review is coming in, but not the call on the field. He has a console with one button to switch the camera angle, one button to toggle between 1/2x-speed and full-speed, and one TV. That's it. He watches what he needs to watch and relays his decision. 

If he fails to do so in 60 seconds, the power to his mic is cut off and the call on the field stands by default.

So much quicker. So much saner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CalBear said:

I think everyone's intuition is that a receiver who lays out for the ball didn't really catch it if he gets two hands on it but drops it when he hits the ground. That's why the "going to the ground" part of the rule is there. 

^THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ball is not moving, it's a catch. If it's in their hand, hands, pinned to their body, whatever. If it's not moving, it's a catch. If they catch it, turn, get hit, and the ball flies out. That's a fumble. Not incomplete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, steelers1080 said:

If the ball is not moving, it's a catch. If it's in their hand, hands, pinned to their body, whatever. If it's not moving, it's a catch. If they catch it, turn, get hit, and the ball flies out. That's a fumble. Not incomplete.

So a football move.  Like it used to be.  Before the NFL "made it better."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 7:45 PM, candian fantasy guy said:

It seemed so much simpler when it was "ball in hand and two feet down in bounds" was the answer. Now, no one knows the answer.

FYP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 5:27 AM, Tool said:

This will be a disaster.

It already is

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rule is mostly ok.  If you catch it "going to the ground", you have to hold on.  What should be loosened up is what going to the ground means.  If you're diving backwards or something, yea.  If you lean out, but are kinda staggering as you catch it, and you get multiple steps in before you fall - nope.If you have control, 2 feet down, and at least one extra step - you caught it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, babydemon90 said:

I think the rule is mostly ok.  If you catch it "going to the ground", you have to hold on.  What should be loosened up is what going to the ground means.  If you're diving backwards or something, yea.  If you lean out, but are kinda staggering as you catch it, and you get multiple steps in before you fall - nope.If you have control, 2 feet down, and at least one extra step - you caught it.

In other words, make a "football move."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter what the rule ends up being, replay should be shut off at 60 seconds. If you don't see enough to overturn in 60 seconds the call on the field stands and that's it, move on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2018 at 11:28 AM, Gally said:

So one handed catches don't count until a 2nd hand touches the ball?  What if a second hand never touches the ball?  OBJ catch and then hand to official never using a second hand....

Sure, one handed catches...of course.  Did I imply somewhere that what I posted should be the entirety of the catch rule?

My point is merely that if a receiver has a ball firmly between his mits, is in bounds and breaks the plane, the play should be done at that point, just like any othe TD play.

 

with respect the Cal, i hear what you are saying.  That’s the road that brought us to where we are now, though, and that’s the rub.  There are many points of debate there, for sure.  I think the line of demarcation needs to be:  when, during the catch process, does the receiver become a runner.  As soon as that happens, TD.  And that’s what the NFL can’t seem to get right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Caveman_Nick said:

with respect the Cal, i hear what you are saying.  That’s the road that brought us to where we are now, though, and that’s the rub.  There are many points of debate there, for sure.  I think the line of demarcation needs to be:  when, during the catch process, does the receiver become a runner.  As soon as that happens, TD.  And that’s what the NFL can’t seem to get right.

I don't think it's possible to write a rule that entirely agrees with our intuition. Every play has its own dynamics of where the receiver's feet are, where the ball is, how his body is moving. And contrary to Alex P Keaton's assertion above, we all sat through dozens of replays where the announcers were asking "is that a football move or not?" 

Like block/charge in basketball, it's going to get called based on what it looks like; even in super slo-mo, you often can't tell what the right call is. The problem is that a football catch, especially in the end zone, is way more important than a single block/charge call in a basketball game. So we review it and review it even though in the end it has to be a judgement call.

Edited by CalBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CalBear said:

I don't think it's possible to write a rule that entirely agrees with our intuition. Every play has its own dynamics of where the receiver's feet are, where the ball is, how his body is moving. And contrary to Alex P Keaton's assertion above, we all sat through dozens of replays where the announcers were asking "is that a football move or not?" 

Like block/charge in basketball, it's going to get called based on what it looks like; even in super slo-mo, you often can't tell what the right call is. The problem is that a football catch, especially in the end zone, is way more important than a single block/charge call in a basketball game. So we review it and review it even though in the end it has to be a judgement call.

Agree that judgment calls are tough.  Especially with the prevalence of replay, etc.

That said, I disagree strongly with your football move comment.  We didn't have lunacy like the Calvin Johnson or Dez Bryant no-catch moments back then.  The rule was cleaner and more importantly, intuitive enough to reinforce basic judgment.  Where we are now is so, so much worse than where we were back in the Stone Age of "football move" language.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alex P Keaton said:

Agree that judgment calls are tough.  Especially with the prevalence of replay, etc.

That said, I disagree strongly with your football move comment.  We didn't have lunacy like the Calvin Johnson or Dez Bryant no-catch moments back then.  The rule was cleaner and more importantly, intuitive enough to reinforce basic judgment.  Where we are now is so, so much worse than where we were back in the Stone Age of "football move" language.

I don't think that bolded statement is necessarily correct.  I think the technology wasn't good enough to make you think your judgement (intuition) could be wrong by slowing it down frame by frame to try and decide a "catch".  Instant replay with super slow-mo is the overriding factor in causing these issues.  I think someone earlier mentioned restricting how slow you can watch a replay as a solution and I agree that will go a long way to bringing back "basic judgement" as the overriding factor in making the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Gally said:

I don't think that bolded statement is necessarily correct.  I think the technology wasn't good enough to make you think your judgement (intuition) could be wrong by slowing it down frame by frame to try and decide a "catch".  Instant replay with super slow-mo is the overriding factor in causing these issues.  I think someone earlier mentioned restricting how slow you can watch a replay as a solution and I agree that will go a long way to bringing back "basic judgement" as the overriding factor in making the decision.

That is likely true.  But what you are ignoring is the nonsense of today's rule around "going to the ground."

The Calvin Johnson non-catch was probably the dumbest call I've ever seen.  Maybe the Tuck Rule - but probably not.  Once guys make a "football move" with even temporary control of the ball, they become a runner. The current rules completely ignore that concept.   Which leaves us stuck where we are - in the land of stupidity in which Goodell appears to be comfortable operating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a life long Bears fan, I felt like the Lions got ripped off on that Calvin play at the end of the game. How was that not a catch???

I find the rule since then has gotten even worse. So many plays/catch reviews where the announcers don't even know anymore, they think it's a catch, replay official says no. It's not a good thing for new fans of the game, it has turned what little interest in football that my wife had into absolutely no interest.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, candian fantasy guy said:

As a life long Bears fan, I felt like the Lions got ripped off on that Calvin play at the end of the game. How was that not a catch???

I find the rule since then has gotten even worse. So many plays/catch reviews where the announcers don't even know anymore, they think it's a catch, replay official says no. It's not a good thing for new fans of the game, it has turned what little interest in football that my wife had into absolutely no interest.  

Who cares what the announcers think? They'll get it wrong most of the time no matter what the rules are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be a fun exercise to go back and re-watch entire games from back in the day but applying modern rules to see how different the outcomes of games may have been.  Incorporate things like instant reply, the catch definition, the two hand touch rules on QB's, defensive holding on receivers, taunting, etc. I bet some games could have had COMPLETELY different outcomes if current rules were applied.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

I think it would be a fun exercise to go back and re-watch entire games from back in the day but applying modern rules to see how different the outcomes of games may have been.  Incorporate things like instant reply, the catch definition, the two hand touch rules on QB's, defensive holding on receivers, taunting, etc. I bet some games could have had COMPLETELY different outcomes if current rules were applied.

If nothing else, people would still be arguing about that Franco Harris "catch" today.  And maybe that throwback "TD" in Tennessee...

Debating plays based on endless repititions of replayed footage is far from new.  The main difference is we can now do it in-game and real time.  

What never ceases to amaze me is how, no matter how many frames per second and pixels per inch we add, we can't get away from controversial calls that will be debated forever without clear resolution.  It's almost as if the game doesn't want to be quantified that precisely.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arodin said:

If nothing else, people would still be arguing about that Franco Harris "catch" today.  And maybe that throwback "TD" in Tennessee...

Debating plays based on endless repititions of replayed footage is far from new.  The main difference is we can now do it in-game and real time.  

What never ceases to amaze me is how, no matter how many frames per second and pixels per inch we add, we can't get away from controversial calls that will be debated forever without clear resolution.  It's almost as if the game doesn't want to be quantified that precisely.

The Tennessee play was reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/3/2018 at 10:07 AM, Arodin said:

If nothing else, people would still be arguing about that Franco Harris "catch" today.  And maybe that throwback "TD" in Tennessee...

Debating plays based on endless repititions of replayed footage is far from new.  The main difference is we can now do it in-game and real time.  

What never ceases to amaze me is how, no matter how many frames per second and pixels per inch we add, we can't get away from controversial calls that will be debated forever without clear resolution.  It's almost as if the game doesn't want to be quantified that precisely.

How hard is it to have goal line and sideline cameras in every stadium? There should never be a missed call on a boundary line play ever.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:20 PM, CalBear said:

I don't think it's possible to write a rule that entirely agrees with our intuition. Every play has its own dynamics of where the receiver's feet are, where the ball is, how his body is moving. And contrary to Alex P Keaton's assertion above, we all sat through dozens of replays where the announcers were asking "is that a football move or not?" 

Like block/charge in basketball, it's going to get called based on what it looks like; even in super slo-mo, you often can't tell what the right call is. The problem is that a football catch, especially in the end zone, is way more important than a single block/charge call in a basketball game. So we review it and review it even though in the end it has to be a judgement call.

Jim Boeheim disagrees

Seriously though, the problem isn't the refs or as Anarchy said, the rule. It's the ability to look at a instantaneous moment involving giant men and a weird shaped ball all moving a million miles an hour and trying to process exactly what happened and make a judgement based on what they think they saw. Then taking that instant and parsing it into millisecond intervals and then having a million other referees make a judgement based on what they think they see, what the "Rule" is and what the 500 different interpretations of the rule are, all without having the rule book. I think instant replay is a slippery slope and really the culprit. There's no way you're going to get those 100% judgmental calls right. Probably not even 90%. Even with super slo-mo/zoom-in/replay. Especially if you keep changing the rules every off season because of the few plays that really could've gone either way based on the judge's interpretation of the rule and then have a bazillion other referees looking at 15 different slo-mo, HD angles and half as many again talking heads on ESPN looking at it on a 10x10 foot screen.

The more the time the refs have to learn, the better they'll get at interpreting it. Keep screwing with it and we'll keep having these discussions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:07 AM, Arodin said:

If nothing else, people would still be arguing about that Franco Harris "catch" today.  And maybe that throwback "TD" in Tennessee...

Debating plays based on endless repititions of replayed footage is far from new.  The main difference is we can now do it in-game and real time.  

What never ceases to amaze me is how, no matter how many frames per second and pixels per inch we add, we can't get away from controversial calls that will be debated forever without clear resolution.  It's almost as if the game doesn't want to be quantified that precisely.

More frames per second and pixels per inch are adding to the controversy.  I think many of the issues with calls are that they are slowed down too much so any minor movement of the ball is taken as not having possession which leads to plays that are "catches" being overturned because of a minor 1 degree rotation of a ball in someone's hands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beyond the catch rule being too complex, I think one step in the right direction would be to better enforce "indisputable video evidence."

I think back to the Jesse James disputed touchdown against the Patriots.  The ruling comes down entirely to whether he was "falling" or not.  Did he take two steps and then dive for the goal line?  Yes.  Were those two steps really "steps" or was he lunging with his feet while falling?  Can anyone really say for sure?

That's the entire point - if you can't say for sure, don't overturn it.  A high standard for evidence would help with consistency, I think.  It would reduce the parsing of plays down to milliseconds because most of those fractional views don't really offer "indisputable" evidence.

When replay was re-introduced in the early 2000s (?) I feel like the officials did a much better job of simply letting plays stand.  Now all the emphasis seems to be on deciding the call by the video, not whether the play should just stand for lack of evidence.

Edited by rschroeder1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this more complicated than "receiver firmly controls the ball and demonstrates possession for two consecutive seconds."

(Or 1.75 or 1.5 or 1.3 or whatever the time is agreed upon after analyzing 1000+ catches) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, tombonneau said:

Why is this more complicated than "receiver firmly controls the ball and demonstrates possession for two consecutive seconds."

(Or 1.75 or 1.5 or 1.3 or whatever the time is agreed upon after analyzing 1000+ catches) 

Because there's no time period which would agree with our intuition in all circumstances. And even 1.3 seconds would be way, way too long. Think about a WR screen route; we feel like that goes from catch to run in a fraction of a second, while contested catches while going to the ground may not be clear for a much longer period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.