Who sees a distinct difference between these two catches? (1 Viewer)

[Toomuchnv]

Just the fact that there is a thread with this many posts is evidence enough that the rule needs fixed.

That assumes that some kind of non-controversial rule could even exist for these edge cases. you could 'fix' it ever year and every year it would be controversial because the things this rule governs by nature have both a huge impact on the game and are close situations. You think you can come up with some good rules on this, be my guest

Simple....control the ball....get two feet down....its a catch....it really should be that simple....if you lose the ball by going to the ground after that he should be down right there since the ground can't cause a fumble...it shouldn't be incomplete....

ok, what does it mean to 'control the ball'? how do you determine when control of the ball has been established? I mean, basically what you describe is what the rule actually *is*, with their interpretation on what controlling the ball means. If you don't define that term, then the refs can call whatever the hell they want, which is bound to be even more controversial and even more a source of confusion/contention/inconsistency.

Again, like the NFL, you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. By control of the ball it should just need to be secure in the wr's hands. Not bobbling, etc.....similar to a sideline catch when a WR grabs the ball, gets 2 feet down and goes out of bounds....

I can't believe how difficult some people are making this. Basically the Calvin Johnson "incompletion", the Dez Bryant playoff incompletion etc....should all be catches as they had control and 2 feet down if the NFL would wake up and simplify the rule.

 

[ragnarok628]

I think a catch should be based on the amount of time you have control of it, with two feet on the ground. I don't know what the hell a "football move" is.

Well Mr. Trout, I see two problems with a stopwatch approach to deciding possession. Firstly is that it would be damn near impossible to consistently call in real time with any precision. Do we really think refs are going to be able to "one hippopotamus" their way into deciding if the receiver established posession long enough of the ball to be a catch? Secondly it would leave situations where a catch by the intuitive understanding of a catch happens noticably before or after the set amount of time you might decide it takes of controlling the ball to be a 'true' catch. So then your rules don't match up with the reality, and you'll have 'should be' fumbles called incomplete and then THAT can be the rule everyone gets pissy about and demands to change.

Furthermore, a few things that aren't necessarily problems but you also need to define: when does the timer start, when hand touches ball? do the feet have to be down before it starts or can it start in mid-air? What about if the receiver bobbles the ball, or tips it to himself? does the timer start at *first* touch or *most recent* touch relative to actually obtaining possession (if possession is in fact attainted)? If a receiver bobbles the ball for the whole time requirement, is it called a catch even if he never clearly controls the ball?

Lots of questions to answer, so you probably would have to make a nice confusing byzantine rule structure to make sure the rule is applicable to all situations... so what's the actual improvement over what we've got in that case?

 

[JIslander]

Didn't look to me like Tate had sole possession of the football, in the endzone.

Re, Beckham's catch: Not sure why you need to get a third foot down, if you catch the ball in the endzone, but that seems to be what the rules mean by "become a runner".

According to the rules, neither should have been a catch. See the Lee Evans drop in the AFC Championship game about 5 years back, for the closest comparison to the Beckham catch.

I think a catch should be based on the amount of time you have control of it, with two feet on the ground. I don't know what the hell a "football move" is.

Exactly. How painful that was...Why always the Pats with these things?

 

[bagger]

Don't even try to understand it. NFL cannot even interpret their own rule consistently.

this is the problem. They have over complicated what a catch is to some abstract philosophical meaning that will soon be a class in college required for a philosophy degree...WR Catch Theory and the Metaphysical Nature of TDs 403.On the bright side that at least gives philosophy majors a career option compared to now.

 

[bagger]

Secondly as a golden Tate owner this is a trick question as he does not score TDs.

 

[ragnarok628]

Again, like the NFL, you are making this more complicated than it needs to be. By control of the ball it should just need to be secure in the wr's hands. Not bobbling, etc.....similar to a sideline catch when a WR grabs the ball, gets 2 feet down and goes out of bounds....

I disagree that it's as simple as you claim. You're coming at it from the perspective that 'everyone agrees' on a given play whether it was a catch or not. It's simply not the case that every catch is either obviously a catch or obviously not a catch. Therefore you have to have a legalistic definition of what a catch is, and stick to it. e.g. you say controlling the ball is simply that it needs to be secure in the WR's hands, not bobbling, etc... Every sunday in the NFL there are plays where reasonable people might disagree that a ball was secure in the WR's hands. ergo your definition is not good enough, it's completely subjective. what does 'secure' mean? perhaps that the ball is immobile relative to the players hands (or whatever he's catching with)? for how long? is a microsecond enough? a tenth of a second? what if it's in his hands for a full half second but then he drops it when hit by a tackler? how about a full second? where exactly is the line, and how are the refs going to call it?

it *is* complicated, we all want it to be simple but it just isn't.

 

[Jack White]

These plays are similar, but not the same.

ODB gets the ball knocked out just as his second foot hits the ground.

Tate has the ball knocked out as his foot hits the ground on his third step, and he had already crossed the plane. Catch and TD.

 

[JIslander]

These plays are similar, but not the same.

ODB gets the ball knocked out just as his second foot hits the ground.

Tate has the ball knocked out as his foot hits the ground on his third step, and he had already crossed the plane. Catch and TD.

Looked more like the ball was knocked out just after ODB's second foot came down. But alas, a "football move" is needed in the endzone for some reason.

 

[GregR]

I thought OBJ's was a touchdown and Tate's was a pick when I saw them live. I don't know.

Super slow mo works great for determining a fumble before the knee or elbow touches. A good camera angle will show definitively if the ball crosses the plane. These are clearly defined objectives. Catching the ball used to be objective.

It all goes back to that day in Chicago when Megatron didn't complete the process. We've gone through different iterations of the wording - football move, defining what is a football move, removing the football move language - but the bottom line is they made it subjective.

Go backwards. Fix it. Control of the ball, two feet down, catch/TD. Defender knocks it away, fumble in the field of play, TD in the end zone.

It's gotten so absurdly inconsistent. You can't have the rule be subjective.

They made the rule far more objective than it used to be. People just don't like the result.

Take the Megatron catch. Go through the slow mo frame by frame. Pretty much the frame right before he lets go of the ball, I think the overwhelming majority would say he "was still going to the ground". Go to the frame after he lets go of the ball. I think the overwhelming majority would say he was done going to the ground and was now just standing up.

But there has to be a moment it goes from no catch, to catch and Megatron chose that moment to drop the ball. He kind of used his momentum of hitting the ground to help him rise right then. Everything before and after it can be objective, but barring being ridiculously specific you'll always have the possibility of a play that is right in the middle. Though they do have an objective answer for that. If it is at that spot, if there is doubt, then it's supposed to be incomplete which is what they called.

Though I think replay shouldn't be overturning a play that resorts to the "it's not conclusive so therefore incomplete" part of the rules.

 

[Uncle Grandpa]

What was the impetus for the redefinition of a catch? Was it really the Calvin Johnson play?

 

[GregR]

What was the impetus for the redefinition of a catch? Was it really the Calvin Johnson play?

No, Calvin Johnson was definitely after the rule change. They changed it because everyone #####ed about the old rule because it wasn't clear.

It used to be called very inconsistently. There was no clear definition of how long control had to be maintained. It wasn't a catch at the exact moment of 2 feet going down, but how long did it take?

Particularly on plays like a crossing route where the defender knocks the ball free and it's either incomplete or a catch and fumble. Everyone had an opinion but you rarely knew how the ref was going to rule. Also plays where the ball comes out when the receiver hits the ground. His body fulfills the 2 feet requirement, so then is it a fumble or incomplete?

The Bert Emanuel catch overrule in the Rams-Bucs playoff game was a big one. That one was more on if the ball can touch the ground during the catch. Now it is clear that as long as you have control already and maintain it, but he had a catch in a close game called incomplete that under the new rules would have been fine since the ball didn't move in his hands. I think they actually changed that part of the rule ahead of the "going to the ground" set of changes, but not positive.

I'd be happy to have the NFL change the rules just because I'm tired of hearing all the #####ing about it. But I couldn't tell you what to change them to that is both equally objective, and would make people happy. Are you going to say, the moment the 2nd foot/other body part touches if he still has control it's a catch? If so we're going to see the number of fumbles spike like crazy. Maybe that's what they need to do to make people happy though.

 

[Tau837]

bostonfred's definition doesn't work for the Gresham play yesterday where he caught it securely started to turn upfield and the ball was knocked out as he was taking his third step. The Seahawks recovered but it was ruled incomplete. Big play, as it likely swung the first half score of that game by 6+ points (at least FG for Seattle vs. the FG Arizona ultimately got before halftime. In a crucial game for both teams.

Granted, the play happened very fast in real time, but what Gresham did meets fred's definition. It also seems to match most people's descriptions of the Tate play.

I am struggling to remember why it was necessary to institute the part about going to the ground. In other words, what is the downside of allowing plays like the Calvin Johnson play, the Dez Bryant play, the Eifert play from a few weeks ago, the Gresham play I mentioned here, the two plays in the OP, etc. to stand as catches? What is the downside of reducing the requirements for ruling a catch?

 

[Tau837]

No, Calvin Johnson was definitely after the rule change. They changed it because everyone #####ed about the old rule because it wasn't clear.

It used to be called very inconsistently. There was no clear definition of how long control had to be maintained. It wasn't a catch at the exact moment of 2 feet going down, but how long did it take?

Why not? What is the downside of making it a catch at the exact moment that one of these two things happens?

1. Second foot or knee, elbow, etc. touches inbounds while ball is under control of receiver (i.e., no bobbling).

2. Receiver gains control of the ball (i.e., no bobbling) after second foot, knee, elbow, etc. touches inbounds.

Particularly on plays like a crossing route where the defender knocks the ball free and it's either incomplete or a catch and fumble. Everyone had an opinion but you rarely knew how the ref was going to rule. Also plays where the ball comes out when the receiver hits the ground. His body fulfills the 2 feet requirement, so then is it a fumble or incomplete?

The old adage is that the ground can't cause a fumble. Under the rationale of my first part above:

1. If the ball pops out simultaneous to the moment possession would otherwise be established via second foot, knee, elbow, back, etc. hitting the ground, it would be incomplete.

2. If the receiver has control of the ball when possession is established, and that moment rules him down (e.g., touching elbow to ground after contact with defender), then it would be a catch, he is down, no fumble.

3. If the receiver has control of the ball when possession is established and subsequently is stripped (e.g., Gresham play yesterday), it would be a catch and fumble.

The Bert Emanuel catch overrule in the Rams-Bucs playoff game was a big one. That one was more on if the ball can touch the ground during the catch. Now it is clear that as long as you have control already and maintain it, but he had a catch in a close game called incomplete that under the new rules would have been fine since the ball didn't move in his hands. I think they actually changed that part of the rule ahead of the "going to the ground" set of changes, but not positive.

As you say, the Bert Emanuel part of the rule is a different part of the rule and does not bear on the discussion or what changes should be made to the part of the rule that is under discussion.

I'd be happy to have the NFL change the rules just because I'm tired of hearing all the #####ing about it. But I couldn't tell you what to change them to that is both equally objective, and would make people happy. Are you going to say, the moment the 2nd foot/other body part touches if he still has control it's a catch? If so we're going to see the number of fumbles spike like crazy. Maybe that's what they need to do to make people happy though.

Yes to the bolded. If it results in more catches and fumbles, so be it. I expect if we took a poll of fans, players, coaches, GMs, et al., they would overwhelmingly prefer that result.

 

[Biabreakable]

I am not entirely sure if both should be called a catch or nether.

What I am sure about is that the rule should be called the same regardless of where the players are on the field. The current rule seems unnecessarily complicated and subjective and would become a better rule by making it more simple and consistent on all play calls regardless of the players position on the field or proximity to the end zone.

The only solution I see to this from a players perspective is don't ever drop the ball.

 

[GregR]

No, Calvin Johnson was definitely after the rule change. They changed it because everyone #####ed about the old rule because it wasn't clear.

It used to be called very inconsistently. There was no clear definition of how long control had to be maintained. It wasn't a catch at the exact moment of 2 feet going down, but how long did it take?

Why not? What is the downside of making it a catch at the exact moment that one of these two things happens?

1. Second foot or knee, elbow, etc. touches inbounds while ball is under control of receiver (i.e., no bobbling).

2. Receiver gains control of the ball (i.e., no bobbling) after second foot, knee, elbow, etc. touches inbounds.

You change the rule to that and the fans will complain it's stupid, that balls that are clearly not catches are getting ruled as fumbles. Do you have MNF in your DVR memory or recording? Scroll back to 7:40 in the 2nd quarter. Under your rule that Marvin Jones play is now a catch and fumble, he has the ball, lands with two feet and is immediately popped and the ball flies out. But he had control the moment his 2nd foot touched down.

Particularly on plays like a crossing route where the defender knocks the ball free and it's either incomplete or a catch and fumble. Everyone had an opinion but you rarely knew how the ref was going to rule. Also plays where the ball comes out when the receiver hits the ground. His body fulfills the 2 feet requirement, so then is it a fumble or incomplete?

The old adage is that the ground can't cause a fumble. Under the rationale of my first part above:

1. If the ball pops out simultaneous to the moment possession would otherwise be established via second foot, knee, elbow, back, etc. hitting the ground, it would be incomplete.

2. If the receiver has control of the ball when possession is established, and that moment rules him down (e.g., touching elbow to ground after contact with defender), then it would be a catch, he is down, no fumble.

3. If the receiver has control of the ball when possession is established and subsequently is stripped (e.g., Gresham play yesterday), it would be a catch and fumble.

I'm not clear what you're saying for part of this. Receiver lays out in the air, untouched by defender. Catches it in the air, hits the ground with his body and the ball immediately flies out from the impact with the ground.. You're ruling that a catch and fumble, right? If touched by a defender then it would be down by contact, right.

The Bert Emanuel catch overrule in the Rams-Bucs playoff game was a big one. That one was more on if the ball can touch the ground during the catch. Now it is clear that as long as you have control already and maintain it, but he had a catch in a close game called incomplete that under the new rules would have been fine since the ball didn't move in his hands. I think they actually changed that part of the rule ahead of the "going to the ground" set of changes, but not positive.

As you say, the Bert Emanuel part of the rule is a different part of the rule and does not bear on the discussion or what changes should be made to the part of the rule that is under discussion.

I'd be happy to have the NFL change the rules just because I'm tired of hearing all the #####ing about it. But I couldn't tell you what to change them to that is both equally objective, and would make people happy. Are you going to say, the moment the 2nd foot/other body part touches if he still has control it's a catch? If so we're going to see the number of fumbles spike like crazy. Maybe that's what they need to do to make people happy though.

Yes to the bolded. If it results in more catches and fumbles, so be it. I expect if we took a poll of fans, players, coaches, GMs, et al., they would overwhelmingly prefer that result.

Answered the two earlier in red above. The last comment, I think if the rule was changed to this people would hate it. Instead of balls they think are completions being incomplete as it is now, balls they currently think are incompletions would be fumbles. Turnovers have a huge impact on the game.

 

[GregR]

4th quarter, 11 minutes, that would have been an interception for Hal. Had the ball trapped against his helmet not moving and his knee down.

 

[ragnarok628]

Yes to the bolded. If it results in more catches and fumbles, so be it. I expect if we took a poll of fans, players, coaches, GMs, et al., they would overwhelmingly prefer that result.

I'm not so bold as to predict what the fans and players would prefer, but I guarantee you that coaches, gms, owners would absolutely hate for random dropped passes to turn into fumbles under your proposed rules. They hate turnovers way more than they hate arguably controversial non-catches.

 

[CalBear]

I thought OBJ's was a touchdown and Tate's was a pick when I saw them live. I don't know.

Super slow mo works great for determining a fumble before the knee or elbow touches. A good camera angle will show definitively if the ball crosses the plane. These are clearly defined objectives. Catching the ball used to be objective.

Catching the ball didn't used to be objective. It used to be impossible to review. If you go back and look at the history of catches in the NFL, there are a ton of discrepancies in edge cases like these. Now that we can review calls, these issues have to be resolved, whereas before you'd just kvetch about the refs making the wrong call.

I am 100% certain that if the NFL changes the rule to "2 feet down is possession", it will be less than two weeks before some catch like OBJ's happens in the field of play and is ruled a fumble (which you'd have to rule it, if you rule it a catch in the end zone), and fans will be on here complaining about "it's OBVIOUS that wasn't a catch! Why can't the NFL get its rules right?" Similarly with someone laying out for a catch, getting his toes down and losing the ball when he hits the ground; our intuition is that that's not a catch.

 

[ghostguy123]

According to the rules neither are a catch.

According to common sense, both are catches.

 

[Jack White]

I'm not sure about this, but I think the rule was changed to reduce the number of turnovers.

It used to be a guy would catch the ball over the middle, get his second foot down and immediately get popped by a safety, and it would be a fumble.

 

[Tau837]

Particularly on plays like a crossing route where the defender knocks the ball free and it's either incomplete or a catch and fumble. Everyone had an opinion but you rarely knew how the ref was going to rule. Also plays where the ball comes out when the receiver hits the ground. His body fulfills the 2 feet requirement, so then is it a fumble or incomplete?

The old adage is that the ground can't cause a fumble. Under the rationale of my first part above:

1. If the ball pops out simultaneous to the moment possession would otherwise be established via second foot, knee, elbow, back, etc. hitting the ground, it would be incomplete.

2. If the receiver has control of the ball when possession is established, and that moment rules him down (e.g., touching elbow to ground after contact with defender), then it would be a catch, he is down, no fumble.

3. If the receiver has control of the ball when possession is established and subsequently is stripped (e.g., Gresham play yesterday), it would be a catch and fumble.

I'm not clear what you're saying for part of this. Receiver lays out in the air, untouched by defender. Catches it in the air, hits the ground with his body and the ball immediately flies out from the impact with the ground.. You're ruling that a catch and fumble, right? If touched by a defender then it would be down by contact, right.

Answered the two earlier in red above.

In your example in red here, the ball would be incomplete. Goes to #1 from my post quoted here.

 

[GregR]

So the proposed rule requires the receiver to maintain control past the point of getting 2-feet/1 body part down in that situation. But no guidance to the ref as to how long it has to be?

If you went with, "yes it's a catch and fumble" then it would be a very objective call to make. Does he have control of the ball in the frame the moment before he touches the ground? If so, he has to touch the ground before the ground can cause him to lose control so he had control and the required 2 feet/1 body part, so a catch. You have a very concise test to apply that should give the same answer the vast majority of the time.

But if that is incomplete, then to be complete he will have to control the ball for an additional amount of time after touching the ground. How long? We're back to a subjective measure in need of guidance.

Site note: I think the current rules may have the same issue in not being clear enough when "going to the ground ends". If a player ends up tumbling when he hits, is it all the way through the tumble, just the initial impact, or what? I would hope the issue has been brought up during ref training and the NFL made it clear to the refs, but I've never heard it clarified to the public.

 

[Tau837]

So the proposed rule requires the receiver to maintain control past the point of getting 2-feet/1 body part down in that situation. But no guidance to the ref as to how long it has to be?

If you went with, "yes it's a catch and fumble" then it would be a very objective call to make. Does he have control of the ball in the frame the moment before he touches the ground? If so, he has to touch the ground before the ground can cause him to lose control so he had control and the required 2 feet/1 body part, so a catch. You have a very concise test to apply that should give the same answer the vast majority of the time.

But if that is incomplete, then to be complete he will have to control the ball for an additional amount of time after touching the ground. How long? We're back to a subjective measure in need of guidance.

Site note: I think the current rules may have the same issue in not being clear enough when "going to the ground ends". If a player ends up tumbling when he hits, is it all the way through the tumble, just the initial impact, or what? I would hope the issue has been brought up during ref training and the NFL made it clear to the refs, but I've never heard it clarified to the public.

It isn't "how long." If the ball comes out simultaneous with the act that would otherwise establish possession, incomplete. If not simultaneous, catch and fumble.

 

[chad in Indy]

Just the fact that there is a thread with this many posts is evidence enough that the rule needs fixed.

That assumes that some kind of non-controversial rule could even exist for these edge cases. you could 'fix' it ever year and every year it would be controversial because the things this rule governs by nature have both a huge impact on the game and are close situations. You think you can come up with some good rules on this, be my guest

The point of my post (not just this one line you referenced) was that there is no consistency in the calls. That is what I want to see fixed. Reread the entire post. I want to see the rule uniformly enforced. That is why I would rather see ALL challenges or reviewed plays settled by the NY office that the NFL set up for reviews. Right now the NY office simply provides to the head referee the camera shots it feels are most important. The head referee on the field makes the final call. Why not just go a step further and let the NY crew make the decision and tell the head referee what the call is? Good or bad, at least then you get a consistent ruling. I would prefer a consistent, yet bad call, versus the unknown. Then, at least I will know what to expect when the situation arises.

 

[Jack White]

Just the fact that there is a thread with this many posts is evidence enough that the rule needs fixed.

That assumes that some kind of non-controversial rule could even exist for these edge cases. you could 'fix' it ever year and every year it would be controversial because the things this rule governs by nature have both a huge impact on the game and are close situations. You think you can come up with some good rules on this, be my guest

The point of my post (not just this one line you referenced) was that there is no consistency in the calls.

This is a fair point, and I think most observers would agree.

On the other hand, no two plays are exactly alike, and at some point these become judgment calls.

 

[Stealthycat]

if you break the plane as a RB and then drop the ball or fumble it? TD

you catch the ball in the end zone, take a step with the ball secured and fumble drop it ? no TD

had OBJ flipped the ball to a ref ? TD

sad thing is ... OBJ was going to "show" the ball to the camera's and dance a TD dance ... showboating cost his team

 

[ragnarok628]

Just the fact that there is a thread with this many posts is evidence enough that the rule needs fixed.

That assumes that some kind of non-controversial rule could even exist for these edge cases. you could 'fix' it ever year and every year it would be controversial because the things this rule governs by nature have both a huge impact on the game and are close situations. You think you can come up with some good rules on this, be my guest

The point of my post (not just this one line you referenced) was that there is no consistency in the calls. That is what I want to see fixed. Reread the entire post. I want to see the rule uniformly enforced. That is why I would rather see ALL challenges or reviewed plays settled by the NY office that the NFL set up for reviews. Right now the NY office simply provides to the head referee the camera shots it feels are most important. The head referee on the field makes the final call. Why not just go a step further and let the NY crew make the decision and tell the head referee what the call is? Good or bad, at least then you get a consistent ruling. I would prefer a consistent, yet bad call, versus the unknown. Then, at least I will know what to expect when the situation arises.

Not sure i agree. The two examples in the OP are actually a great example of how the rule *was* consistently called. In the ODB v. Tate situation I see that the rules were consistently and correctly applied to the different situations. The rules are actually pretty good, but they sometimes result in correct calls which some people don't like because they seem, to those people, to give a counter-intuitive result e.g. looked like a catch but wasn't or vice versa. This makes it *seem* as though there is less consistency than there is. All people remember is that the call didn't go the way they thought it should go, and then they compare it to other situations that may be similar but the differences led to a different but also correct call... and yeah, it feels inconsistent because if you don't (want to) understand the minutiae of the rule and why it is that way, then it's a ####### circus out there to you with the refereeing. But that's mostly perception, reality is that even in this OP's comparison which is designed to highlight a supposed inconsistency we can look at it closer and see that actually the calls were consistent. Yes the refs sometimes get it wrong even after replay, but that happens with all kinds of calls not just the much maligned catch rules.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The NFL's VP of officiating Dean Blandino was the most surprising part of this. Looks like some schlub in a Manhattan bar.

Anyway I'd say the Tate play was a pick, the Beckham play was a catch and then it wasn't, have to hold the ball.

 

[Uncle Grandpa]

Just the fact that there is a thread with this many posts is evidence enough that the rule needs fixed.

That assumes that some kind of non-controversial rule could even exist for these edge cases. you could 'fix' it ever year and every year it would be controversial because the things this rule governs by nature have both a huge impact on the game and are close situations. You think you can come up with some good rules on this, be my guest

The point of my post (not just this one line you referenced) was that there is no consistency in the calls. That is what I want to see fixed. Reread the entire post. I want to see the rule uniformly enforced. That is why I would rather see ALL challenges or reviewed plays settled by the NY office that the NFL set up for reviews. Right now the NY office simply provides to the head referee the camera shots it feels are most important. The head referee on the field makes the final call. Why not just go a step further and let the NY crew make the decision and tell the head referee what the call is? Good or bad, at least then you get a consistent ruling. I would prefer a consistent, yet bad call, versus the unknown. Then, at least I will know what to expect when the situation arises.

Not sure i agree. The two examples in the OP are actually a great example of how the rule *was* consistently called. In the ODB v. Tate situation I see that the rules were consistently and correctly applied to the different situations. The rules are actually pretty good, but they sometimes result in correct calls which some people don't like because they seem, to those people, to give a counter-intuitive result e.g. looked like a catch but wasn't or vice versa. This makes it *seem* as though there is less consistency than there is. All people remember is that the call didn't go the way they thought it should go, and then they compare it to other situations that may be similar but the differences led to a different but also correct call... and yeah, it feels inconsistent because if you don't (want to) understand the minutiae of the rule and why it is that way, then it's a ####### circus out there to you with the refereeing. But that's mostly perception, reality is that even in this OP's comparison which is designed to highlight a supposed inconsistency we can look at it closer and see that actually the calls were consistent. Yes the refs sometimes get it wrong even after replay, but that happens with all kinds of calls not just the much maligned catch rules.

Well, about 80% of those who participated in this poll disagree with you. As another mentioned, these are avid NFL fans. I imagine if we asked casual fans or those who don't watch football, the percentage would be even higher. Now that's not to say you're wrong in your opinion, but if the current rule is "actually pretty good", then it seems the NFL has some work to do in explaining to its fans why. I, and I assume others on this board, want to understand "the minutiae of the rule", but thus far the NFL has failed in its presentation. And just for the record, we're not just talking about the fans on this board; we're talking about NFL writers, game announcers, analysts, and I'm sure you can throw players and coaches in there to some degree.

ETA: No sooner do I type this that I find this article on the front page of NFL.com: Use football sense

 

[fbelange]

Catch it in the endzone and let go of the ball, incomplete. Stick 1 inch of the ball across the goal line and lose the ball, TD. How stupid is that?

extremely

 

[Da Guru]

It is simple. Both should have been ruled a catch and TD, or both should be been ruled incomplete, or in Tate's case an INT for Da Bears.

 

[ragnarok628]

Well, about 80% of those who participated in this poll disagree with you. As another mentioned, these are avid NFL fans. I imagine if we asked casual fans or those who don't watch football, the percentage would be even higher. Now that's not to say you're wrong in your opinion, but if the current rule is "actually pretty good", then it seems the NFL has some work to do in explaining to its fans why. I, and I assume others on this board, want to understand "the minutiae of the rule", but thus far the NFL has failed in its presentation. And just for the record, we're not just talking about the fans on this board; we're talking about NFL writers, game announcers, analysts, and I'm sure you can throw players and coaches in there to some degree.


ETA: No sooner do I type this that I find this article on the front page of NFL.com: Use football sense

The thing is, people *want* it to be simple, and it's really easy to convince yourself of something you want to believe. So it's not at all surprising that most people would disagree with the position that the complicated catch rules are appropriate. However those 80% don't have a plan to deal with the *increased* uncertainty that would thrive if the NFL reverted to a naive catch definition, or if they do I haven't heard it. If people aren't understanding the NFL's understanding of what has to be done to complete a catch, it's because they aren't trying. Every time these come up and the final call is made, the ref explains the call, they have a rules expert to explain why the call was made and the next day Blandino gets out there and explains again (or occasionally, explains why it was a mistake). Fans still don't get it because fans don't want to hear it, they just want the NFL to validate their opinion of catch or no catch without regard for why the complicated rules are necessary.

Pete Carroll's position is absolutely laughable... rely on 'football sense'? As if there is one and only one possible viewpoint about the 'football sense' of a given call. It becomes 100% subjective, which is a huge step backwards. Frankly I'm pretty annoyed at the simplistic viewpoints put forth by the talking heads in sports because they should at least know better; but let's be honest they've got to create content and the idea that defining a catch is 'simple' checks a lot of ratings boxes: controversial, current, and the audience mostly already agrees with you. So they're incentivized to help make this a thing rather than help the audience understand the rules and why they are that way.

ETA: just for the record, on the play which Pete Carroll was on about, Blandino basically agreed that the call was probably wrong but the play was not quite clear enough on review to overturn, so the call stood. If it had been called the other way, that would have stood also stood. aka this one was 'too close to call' so what happens when you apply 'football sense' as Pete Carroll would want? does that fix anything? No.

 

[Tau837]

The thing is, people *want* it to be simple, and it's really easy to convince yourself of something you want to believe. So it's not at all surprising that most people would disagree with the position that the complicated catch rules are appropriate. However those 80% don't have a plan to deal with the *increased* uncertainty that would thrive if the NFL reverted to a naive catch definition, or if they do I haven't heard it.

I already posted a better approach earlier in the thread. The first moment possession is established (second foot, elbow, arm, butt, back down) with the ball secured, it is a catch. If out after that, it is a fumble (but the ground still cannot cause a fumble). If the ball comes out at the same moment as possession would otherwise be established, it is incomplete.

That is simple in comparison to the way the rules have been written for years, and it is less subjective. It's a catch as soon as possession is established with ball secured. No football move. No establishing as runner. No going to the ground issue. No duration of holding the ball after possession. No third step required.

This will result in more catches and also more fumbles. I see no problem with either.

 

[ragnarok628]

I thought Greg Russell did a more than adequate job pointing out flaws in your approach, so I didn't chime in. My main issue though is defining what you mean by 'secured'. There must be some kind of time element otherwise there is no distinction between 'secured' and 'touched and then dropped', the latter being what we would call an incomplete pass. So basically what you're proposing is that an obvious drop should be considered a completed pass and fumble, for example, in the case where the receiver contacts the ball flat-footed but doesn't 'catch' it in the intuitive sense of the word. The only way you get around that conclusion is if you admit that the receiver must control the ball for some period in order to have 'secured' it. And now you're forced to craft rules to determine how long that period must be in either an absolute sense or relative to other happenings on the field, e.g. perhaps 'control the ball for 1 second' or ' control the ball until you become a runner', in other words, 'control the ball through the process of the catch'. because the CATCH IS NOT OVER just because you're touching the ball at some given instant. this is what makes it complicated.

 

[Uncle Grandpa]

The thing is, people *want* it to be simple, and it's really easy to convince yourself of something you want to believe. So it's not at all surprising that most people would disagree with the position that the complicated catch rules are appropriate. However those 80% don't have a plan to deal with the *increased* uncertainty that would thrive if the NFL reverted to a naive catch definition, or if they do I haven't heard it. If people aren't understanding the NFL's understanding of what has to be done to complete a catch, it's because they aren't trying. Every time these come up and the final call is made, the ref explains the call, they have a rules expert to explain why the call was made and the next day Blandino gets out there and explains again (or occasionally, explains why it was a mistake). Fans still don't get it because fans don't want to hear it, they just want the NFL to validate their opinion of catch or no catch without regard for why the complicated rules are necessary.

You speak with a certain air of confidence on the subject as if you fully understand the NFL's rules and that the difference between the two catches is easily discernible once you understand those rules. That led me to go through this thread so that I could better understand the specifics of the rules which led to your conclusion. Instead, I found this:

I don't really know the details in the rulebook on this but there is some instant which must occur *after* initial contact, wherein the ball is actually 'caught'. With ODB, they determined that the defender knocked the ball out before that instant, which prevented the catch, and to me that's pretty defensible; didn't look to me like he was done catching that football. The Tate situation, looks like he has completed the catch when it's knocked out, that instant had already passed, so it would have been a fumble; and then of course if he 'fumbles' in the end zone, he must have already been possessing the ball in the endzone, so: touchdown.

Honestly, it looks like you're just using inductive reasoning to validate both calls. You haven't really reconciled those calls to the actual rules.

 

[ragnarok628]

Well, you're more or less correct. I don't have the rules in front of me and my understanding of them is largely based on watching football and having heard the (many) explanations from the NFL/commentators on the catches. From this I feel like I understand the principles they use to guide the calls (e.g. that catching the ball is a process which must be completed before a pass is deemed to have been 'caught'), and they make good sense to me even though the results which come from the application of those principles sometimes cause controversies or seeming inconsistencies. I'm not attempting to set myself up as an expert, which is the goal of saying i 'dont really know the details'; I'm not a lawyer or rules expert, but when it comes to the principles on this issue I believe I understand what the NFL is doing. And as I attempted to illustrate, when you look at the plays from that perspective, the rules do indeed seem to have been applied consistently and in a way that accurately captures 'completing the process' sensibly (again, from that perspective). From the perspective of "well i think that's a catch based on my personal understanding of "football sense"' then well no system that is capable of being consistently applied is going to gel perfectly with that standard for all viewers.

 

[chad in Indy]

Well, about 80% of those who participated in this poll disagree with you. As another mentioned, these are avid NFL fans. I imagine if we asked casual fans or those who don't watch football, the percentage would be even higher. Now that's not to say you're wrong in your opinion, but if the current rule is "actually pretty good", then it seems the NFL has some work to do in explaining to its fans why. I, and I assume others on this board, want to understand "the minutiae of the rule", but thus far the NFL has failed in its presentation. And just for the record, we're not just talking about the fans on this board; we're talking about NFL writers, game announcers, analysts, and I'm sure you can throw players and coaches in there to some degree.


ETA: No sooner do I type this that I find this article on the front page of NFL.com: Use football sense

The thing is, people *want* it to be simple, and it's really easy to convince yourself of something you want to believe. So it's not at all surprising that most people would disagree with the position that the complicated catch rules are appropriate. However those 80% don't have a plan to deal with the *increased* uncertainty that would thrive if the NFL reverted to a naive catch definition, or if they do I haven't heard it. If people aren't understanding the NFL's understanding of what has to be done to complete a catch, it's because they aren't trying. Every time these come up and the final call is made, the ref explains the call, they have a rules expert to explain why the call was made and the next day Blandino gets out there and explains again (or occasionally, explains why it was a mistake). Fans still don't get it because fans don't want to hear it, they just want the NFL to validate their opinion of catch or no catch without regard for why the complicated rules are necessary.

Pete Carroll's position is absolutely laughable... rely on 'football sense'? As if there is one and only one possible viewpoint about the 'football sense' of a given call. It becomes 100% subjective, which is a huge step backwards. Frankly I'm pretty annoyed at the simplistic viewpoints put forth by the talking heads in sports because they should at least know better; but let's be honest they've got to create content and the idea that defining a catch is 'simple' checks a lot of ratings boxes: controversial, current, and the audience mostly already agrees with you. So they're incentivized to help make this a thing rather than help the audience understand the rules and why they are that way.

ETA: just for the record, on the play which Pete Carroll was on about, Blandino basically agreed that the call was probably wrong but the play was not quite clear enough on review to overturn, so the call stood. If it had been called the other way, that would have stood also stood. aka this one was 'too close to call' so what happens when you apply 'football sense' as Pete Carroll would want? does that fix anything? No.

Even Blandino contradicts himself when reviewing the Golden Tate TD. He states, "the third step is almost on ground when the ball comes out." Here is the video (toward the end) Blandino explanation If the third step, by Blandino's own admission, is not even on the ground yet, how can Tate be said to have made a football move and established himself as a runner???

Here is the icing on the cake. Contrast these two explanations both from Blandino himself.

Golden Tate: "[t]he third step is almost on ground when the ball comes, he had demonstrated possession, had become a runner..."

versus

Darren Fells Monday Night: "The ball was coming out just as he was taking his third step and we never felt that he had clearly established himself as a runner"

In both instances, the receiver is taking his third step with the ball coming out. But, Tate = completion/TD, Fells = incomplete. Actually, its worse, because Tate's third step wasn't even on the ground yet, while Fell's was at least on the ground. Blandino's explanations are both based on a third step, yet exact opposite results. VP of officiating can't even keep it consistent and you don't see a problem?

 

[Tau837]

I thought Greg Russell did a more than adequate job pointing out flaws in your approach, so I didn't chime in. My main issue though is defining what you mean by 'secured'. There must be some kind of time element otherwise there is no distinction between 'secured' and 'touched and then dropped', the latter being what we would call an incomplete pass. So basically what you're proposing is that an obvious drop should be considered a completed pass and fumble, for example, in the case where the receiver contacts the ball flat-footed but doesn't 'catch' it in the intuitive sense of the word. The only way you get around that conclusion is if you admit that the receiver must control the ball for some period in order to have 'secured' it. And now you're forced to craft rules to determine how long that period must be in either an absolute sense or relative to other happenings on the field, e.g. perhaps 'control the ball for 1 second' or ' control the ball until you become a runner', in other words, 'control the ball through the process of the catch'. because the CATCH IS NOT OVER just because you're touching the ball at some given instant. this is what makes it complicated.

All of your bolded statements are incorrect here.

Refs already have to judge when the ball is secured, so my solution doesn't change that. But they currently also have to judge other stuff (going to the ground, becoming a runner) that my solution would not require.

 

[ragnarok628]

a third step isn't a requirement in the rules AFAIK to establish oneself as a runner. I don't think I've heard anyone from the NFL say that it is, although i have heard it used as evidence confirming that the player had established himself as a runner. Likely taking the third step is one of a number of indicators that the player is now established as a runner. It would probably be instructive to learn what factors go into making that decision. Also, you have to remember that becoming a runner is secondary to controlling the ball. I think the real reason the calls were different between these two is that it doesn't look like Fells is actually controlling the ball for the whole time before it gets punched out. It's hard to see from the first few angles but from the last few angles I see some movement of the ball before it gets punched out. Perhaps this cast enough doubt in the replay booth that they decided to err on the side of not overturning the on the field call. I think it's somewhat likely they got this one wrong, and it *should* have been called the same as Tate, but that's how replays have always been--if you can't tell from the replay then you don't overturn the call. With Tate the camera view was very good so that it was clear exactly what happened and with what they saw they were comfortable to overturn the call on the field.

Anyway it's not really my position the the NFL rules are perfect and always get called consistently and no improvement could be made. It is that deciding whether something was a catch or not IS actually complicated and I respect that the NFL rules attempt to handle this in a reasonable way; and as a corollary I object to the idea that there exists some simple criteria that will be universially applicable to all catching situations which will be easily applied to give a completely intuitive to all viewers result in every case. Because it's just not that simple.

 

[ragnarok628]

I thought Greg Russell did a more than adequate job pointing out flaws in your approach, so I didn't chime in. My main issue though is defining what you mean by 'secured'. There must be some kind of time element otherwise there is no distinction between 'secured' and 'touched and then dropped', the latter being what we would call an incomplete pass. So basically what you're proposing is that an obvious drop should be considered a completed pass and fumble, for example, in the case where the receiver contacts the ball flat-footed but doesn't 'catch' it in the intuitive sense of the word. The only way you get around that conclusion is if you admit that the receiver must control the ball for some period in order to have 'secured' it. And now you're forced to craft rules to determine how long that period must be in either an absolute sense or relative to other happenings on the field, e.g. perhaps 'control the ball for 1 second' or ' control the ball until you become a runner', in other words, 'control the ball through the process of the catch'. because the CATCH IS NOT OVER just because you're touching the ball at some given instant. this is what makes it complicated.

All of your bolded statements are incorrect here.

Refs already have to judge when the ball is secured, so my solution doesn't change that. But they currently also have to judge other stuff (going to the ground, becoming a runner) that my solution would not require.

I accept that you disagree with my bolded statements, but that doesn't make them incorrect. Lets start with #1. I state that without a time element, there is no distinction between 'secured' and 'touched and then dropped'. I don't really think that is disputable, it is a fact. So please explain what is incorrect about the statement.

 

[DoubleG]

Just the fact that there is a thread with this many posts is evidence enough that the rule needs fixed. If there is this much dispute between avid and educated football fans, how is any casual fan to know what is going on? Same thing for instant replay. There is far too much variance in each referee's determination when going to a replay. I'd rather have one eye in the sky making consistent calls (even if bad), then inconsistent decisions from the head referees on the field. It's getting to be similar to watching college officiating dependent on which conference the refs come from.

This is correct. If educated, life-long football fans can't tell what the hell a catch is (according to the NFL's definition) the NFL better fix this fast or casual fans will start to call BS.

 

[ragnarok628]

< 2 pages is not that many posts tbh, and like half of them are me. A handful of guys who don't want to understand something not understanding that thing is not evidence for anything, much less the need to overhaul the NFL catch rules.

 

[JIslander]

Coughlin's right: "We've made this a very difficult call," Coughlin told WFAN's Mike Francesa, via NJ.com. "And the thing that bothers me about it is, first, the word 'runner.' There is no runner in the end zone. When a guy catches the ball in the end zone, that's it. He's not going to take another step, Mike.

I'll be surprised if this isn't changed in the off-season.

 

[CalBear]

Coughlin's right: "We've made this a very difficult call," Coughlin told WFAN's Mike Francesa, via NJ.com. "And the thing that bothers me about it is, first, the word 'runner.' There is no runner in the end zone. When a guy catches the ball in the end zone, that's it. He's not going to take another step, Mike.

I'll be surprised if this isn't changed in the off-season.

If it is, there's a 100% guarantee that people will still be in here complaining next year.

 

[chad in Indy]

a third step isn't a requirement in the rules AFAIK to establish oneself as a runner. I don't think I've heard anyone from the NFL say that it is, although i have heard it used as evidence confirming that the player had established himself as a runner. Likely taking the third step is one of a number of indicators that the player is now established as a runner. It would probably be instructive to learn what factors go into making that decision. Also, you have to remember that becoming a runner is secondary to controlling the ball. I think the real reason the calls were different between these two is that it doesn't look like Fells is actually controlling the ball for the whole time before it gets punched out. It's hard to see from the first few angles but from the last few angles I see some movement of the ball before it gets punched out. Perhaps this cast enough doubt in the replay booth that they decided to err on the side of not overturning the on the field call. I think it's somewhat likely they got this one wrong, and it *should* have been called the same as Tate, but that's how replays have always been--if you can't tell from the replay then you don't overturn the call. With Tate the camera view was very good so that it was clear exactly what happened and with what they saw they were comfortable to overturn the call on the field.

Anyway it's not really my position the the NFL rules are perfect and always get called consistently and no improvement could be made. It is that deciding whether something was a catch or not IS actually complicated and I respect that the NFL rules attempt to handle this in a reasonable way; and as a corollary I object to the idea that there exists some simple criteria that will be universially applicable to all catching situations which will be easily applied to give a completely intuitive to all viewers result in every case. Because it's just not that simple.

You are correct that a third step is not "required." But it is one of the factors refs rely on so many times when explaining themselves (and Blandino). Here is the actual rule. A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

Again, my problem is not with a rule in general. I too think it is complex and is subjective. My problem is with the inconsistency in the calls. You have to acknowledge the fallacy in Blandino's argument that Tate had become a runner because the ball was coming out when he was about to take his third step, yet turn around to say that Fells, who already had taken three steps, had not become a runner.

By that definition, and coupled with the fact that the original call on the field for Tate was an interception, I do not see how you can overturn. I do not see a player "capable of warding of impending contact." His third step came from being spun around by the defender.

 

[kOOk]

It is so unbelievably stupid the way they end up rationalizing #### in the NFL due to incompetent refs. And that's with replay. What a joke.

 

[Tau837]

I thought Greg Russell did a more than adequate job pointing out flaws in your approach, so I didn't chime in. My main issue though is defining what you mean by 'secured'. There must be some kind of time element otherwise there is no distinction between 'secured' and 'touched and then dropped', the latter being what we would call an incomplete pass. So basically what you're proposing is that an obvious drop should be considered a completed pass and fumble, for example, in the case where the receiver contacts the ball flat-footed but doesn't 'catch' it in the intuitive sense of the word. The only way you get around that conclusion is if you admit that the receiver must control the ball for some period in order to have 'secured' it. And now you're forced to craft rules to determine how long that period must be in either an absolute sense or relative to other happenings on the field, e.g. perhaps 'control the ball for 1 second' or ' control the ball until you become a runner', in other words, 'control the ball through the process of the catch'. because the CATCH IS NOT OVER just because you're touching the ball at some given instant. this is what makes it complicated.

All of your bolded statements are incorrect here.

Refs already have to judge when the ball is secured, so my solution doesn't change that. But they currently also have to judge other stuff (going to the ground, becoming a runner) that my solution would not require.

I accept that you disagree with my bolded statements, but that doesn't make them incorrect. Lets start with #1. I state that without a time element, there is no distinction between 'secured' and 'touched and then dropped'. I don't really think that is disputable, it is a fact. So please explain what is incorrect about the statement.

You are overcomplicating it. Refs must already judge when a ball is secured, and the rules do not specifically define a time element for that. My proposed approach does not change that judgment.

 

[Rubi]

OBJ's looked more like a catch to me than Tate's,thought he had it a split second longer.

Somene actually timed both of them and said they each had the ball "in control" for .7 seconds. So both should have been ruled the same. imop.

 

[bjabrad]

Both plays were in the end zone so once they establish what's ruled possession the play is over and a TD. Neither player went to the ground with the ball so that rule does not apply.

Tate fended off first contact for one step (of ball control) and became a runner.

OBJ did not fend off first contact for one step and thus did not become a runner.

 

[PhD]

Is there a clear distinction in the rules to judge a catch in the endzone vs. a catch in the field? Coughlin's point seems to be the essential argument and the need for clarity in the ruling.

For example, like catches in the field, the Tate ruling had to show that he was a runner in effect because he was crossing the goal line while making the catch. However, while in the endzone, there is no need to run. There is only a need to catch/control it in bounds (ie, both feet in bounds). OBJ clearly has control as his first foot comes down and while the second foot comes down. In that instant this makes it a TD.... THEN the ball is knocked out. If he is in the field this would not be a catch because he did not become a runner. However, in the endzone this IS a catch because he gets both feet down, so the TD is immediately called.

I'm not suggesting this IS the way it is now, but it should be.