NFL to review catch rule (again)

[dtait93]

28 minutes ago, youngosu said:

As for the Calvin Johnson play. Yes, it was a catch because he gets clear possession of the ball, get both feet down, advances the ball multiple steps, then falls to the ground and only loses the ball a full count later. It was not even close to bang/bang. That should also be a catch at the 50 yard line. 

I've said before, my standard is "Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game"

Johnson did that. It also passes the common sense test of what is/isn't a catch. 

The only difference between the OBJ play and the Calvin Johnson play is that he holds on to it a little longer. In fact OBJ even has time to turn his entire body around before Butler dislodges it. They both get clear possession of the ball, get both feet down, and neither of them advance the ball multiple steps because they both only get 2 feet down. The only difference is how long they possessed it. So by your logic we have to now go by counts to determine what is and isn't a catch? How many counts, half-counts, quarter-counts does there have to be before we determine what is and isn't a catch? Define even what you mean by a count and how long a count is. That's an extremely slippery slope.

If Johnson's play passes the, "common sense test" then how does OBJ's play not? All he did was hold the ball a little longer.

[youngosu]

22 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

The only difference between the OBJ play and the Calvin Johnson play is that he holds on to it a little longer. In fact OBJ even has time to turn his entire body around before Butler dislodges it. They both get clear possession of the ball, get both feet down, and neither of them advance the ball multiple steps because they both only get 2 feet down. The only difference is how long they possessed it. So by your logic we have to now go by counts to determine what is and isn't a catch? How many counts, half-counts, quarter-counts does there have to be before we determine what is and isn't a catch? Define even what you mean by a count and how long a count is. That's an extremely slippery slope.

If Johnson's play passes the, "common sense test" then how does OBJ's play not? All he did was hold the ball a little longer.

Disagree with nearly everything you claim here, on the OBJ play he gets his 2nd foot down at nearly the same moment that the defender rips the ball free. Johnson actually gets both feet down (and one foot gets down twice), gets his butt down, and (my opinion) only loses the ball because the play was over. And FYI, how long you possess it does matter. 

Look, at the end of the day I'd take the current rule over the absurdity you propose so if we can't use common sense (and apparently we can't) I hope the NFL leaves it as it is. Your idea would be an utter disaster. I am far more okay with that CJ catch being ruled incomplete than I would be with that OBJ play being ruled complete so this thread has actually put me on the NFL's side.

[dtait93]

25 minutes ago, youngosu said:

Disagree with nearly everything you claim here, on the OBJ play he gets his 2nd foot down at nearly the same moment that the defender rips the ball free. Johnson actually gets both feet down (and one foot gets down twice), gets his butt down, and (my opinion) only loses the ball because the play was over. And FYI, how long you possess it does matter. 

Look, at the end of the day I'd take the current rule over the absurdity you propose so if we can't use common sense (and apparently we can't) I hope the NFL leaves it as it is. Your idea would be an utter disaster. I am far more okay with that CJ catch being ruled incomplete than I would be with that OBJ play being ruled complete so this thread has actually put me on the NFL's side.

1) He gets his second foot down before the ball was knocked out. To say otherwise would be disputing facts. In fact he even had enough time to turn his entire body around before the ball was stripped so it's not even as bang/bang as you claim.

2) You still can't answer how long a count is. Specifying how long a count is removes the common sense factor instead of just looking at the play for what it is. So for someone who goes by this random made up, "common sense test" that would be stupid to factor into whether someone caught he ball or not.

3) Possession + 2 feet/knee/elbow/butt = catch is the easiest way to make the rule even all the way around. Throw away all the extra mumbo jumbo. Football move? Counts? Surviving the ground? Completing the catch? How about using your common sense (which I never said you can't use so not sure where you got that besides just making things up again) and just seeing if he possessed the ball with 2 feet down instead. Simple.

4) You're already on the NFL's side anyways if you don't think the OBJ play was a catch.

[youngosu]

11 minutes ago, dtait93 said:

1) He gets his second foot down before the ball was knocked out. To say otherwise would be disputing facts. In fact he even had enough time to turn his entire body around before the ball was stripped so it's not even as bang/bang as you claim.

2) You still can't answer how long a count is. Specifying how long a count is removes the common sense factor instead of just looking at the play for what it is. So for someone who goes by this random made up, "common sense test" that would be stupid to factor into whether someone caught he ball or not.

3) Possession + 2 feet/knee/elbow/butt = catch is the easiest way to make the rule even all the way around. Throw away all the extra mumbo jumbo. Football move? Counts? Surviving the ground? Completing the catch? How about using your common sense (which I never said you can't use so not sure where you got that besides just making things up again) and just seeing if he possessed the ball with 2 feet down instead. Simple.

4) You're already on the NFL's side anyways if you don't think the OBJ play was a catch.

I hate your idea so much that I am no longer even presenting any other options. The NFL has it right already because if the goal is to make fans like you happy I don't want to see that league. 

You want something that is all about gray areas to have a black and white definition. I am okay with the gray areas. The NFL is trying to make the black and white folks like you happy and I definitely side with the current NFL definition over the ridiculous definition you want. Sadly, the NFL can never make you happy because catches will always have gray areas which is why we pay officials to make that judgement. By trying to make it black and white they can only make it worse as they've been doing. 

I continue to know a catch when a see a catch and OBJ did not make that catch. Sorry, he just didn't. At no time in the history of football at any level would that play be ruled a catch (whereas that the Johnson play would have been ruled a catch for the majority of football's history) I am done with this discussion, but thank you for teaching me that the NFL is doing the best they can. I now sincerely hope they make no change to the rule. 

[dtait93]

3 minutes ago, youngosu said:

I hate your idea so much that I am no longer even presenting any other options. The NFL has it right already because if the goal is to make fans like you happy I don't want to see that league. 

You want something that is all about gray areas to have some black and white definition. I am okay with the gray areas. The NFL is trying to make the black and white folks like you happy and I definitely side with the current NFL definition over the ridiculous definition you want. 

I continue to know a catch when a see a catch and OBJ did not make that catch. Sorry, he just didn't. At no time in the history of football at any level would that play be ruled a catch (whereas that the Johnson play would have been ruled a catch for the majority of football's history) I am done with this discussion, but thank you for teaching me that the NFL is doing the best they can. I now sincerely hope they make no change to the rule. 

They're already in discussions to change the rule, for the better I might add, so it looks like you're just gonna have to deal with it or quit watching if it bothers you that much lol

[youngosu]

1 minute ago, dtait93 said:

They're already in discussions to change the rule, for the better I might add, so it looks like you're just gonna have to deal with it or quit watching if it bothers you that much lol

Not a problem. I rarely watch games that don't involve the Seahawks now. I get most of my football fix on Saturday's since its a far superior product despite less talent on the field. 

We will see, I doubt they will make a change that makes that OBJ play a catch because no one with any experience in football would consider that a catch. So you will likely be the disappointed one. But at the end of day if they do it just means I get even more Sunday rounds of golf in so its win/win for me. 

[raiderrocker18]

On 1/31/2018 at 11:50 AM, raiderrocker18 said:

just extend the scope of what constitutes a football move, and eliminate the need to "control the ball throughout the entire process"

possession + 2 feet/knee + just about any other movement = catch

i hate the "football move" thing, but it makes sense in circumstances when a player jumps for a ball and the defender knocks it out of his grasp the instant his feet tap the floor

 

[BigD88]

I didn't read the first 10 pages so perhaps this has already been relayed but...

This really isn't that hard.  It's a complete joke that this is an issue in 2018 for the National freaking Football League.

Just acknowledge the fact that a receiver can make a "football move" (constituting possession) while going to the ground.

BOOM!  Problem freaking solved.

If you possess the ball well enough to reach for a first down or touchdown while going to the ground, then you have possession and it's a catch.  If you receive the ball while going to the ground but don't make any moves, and then lose the ball when you hit the ground, then it's incomplete.  Common sense has said this for the past couple centuries when people of all ages played this thing in their backyard.  Literally no controversy going forward.

Come on.

[NoFlyZone]

1 hour ago, BigD88 said:

I didn't read the first 10 pages so perhaps this has already been relayed but...

This really isn't that hard.  It's a complete joke that this is an issue in 2018 for the National freaking Football League.

Just acknowledge the fact that a receiver can make a "football move" (constituting possession) while going to the ground.

BOOM!  Problem freaking solved.

If you possess the ball well enough to reach for a first down or touchdown while going to the ground, then you have possession and it's a catch.  If you receive the ball while going to the ground but don't make any moves, and then lose the ball when you hit the ground, then it's incomplete.  Common sense has said this for the past couple centuries when people of all ages played this thing in their backyard.  Literally no controversy going forward.

Come on.

You hit the nail on the head. It was always a really ridiculous debate. As far as Dez goes, the only reason why he lost control of the ball in his infamous "non-catch" was because he made a move with the football after having caught it. If he would have jumped into the air and immediately gone straight to the ground while losing control of the ball then yes, of course that should be ruled incomplete.. but he only lost the ball because he tried to advance with it through the course of multiple steps. And yet people want to act as if he just caught it and dropped. If he wouldn't have tried to advance the football he wouldn't have lost control in the first place, which is a ridiculously clear indicator that his catch should have been ruled complete.

.. Not even bitter though

[MacReady]

Seriously, this is annoying.  Give just one benefit to the defense and every single catch controversy goes away.  If the ball touches the ground before 5 steps (easily quantifiable), it's not a catch.  If the ball comes loose or touches the ground after 5 steps, it's a fumble.  Literally every controversial call ended. 

[jebrick]

To me, Bert Emanuel said it best.  If a player is reaching with the ball they have control of it.  Otherwise they would not be reaching.

[RuskieTitan]

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22596427/nfl-competition-committee-was-unanimous-call-dallas-cowboys-dez-bryant-playoff-game-ruled-catch

Quote

Dez caught it.

The NFL competition committee has reached a "unanimous" agreement that some of the league's most debated catch controversies should be ruled complete in the future, according to committee member and New York Giants owner John Mara.

They include plays involving Dallas Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the 2014 playoffs and Detroit Lions receiver Calvin Johnson in 2010, Mara said, and have prompted a discussion during meetings here at the scouting combine geared toward rewriting the rule for the 2018 season.

"I think where we are unanimous," Mara told ESPN on Tuesday, "[are] plays like the Dez Bryant play in Green Bay, going to the ground, the Calvin Johnson play from a couple of years ago. I think all of us agree that those should be completions. So let's write the language to make them completions."

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has directed the committee to study the issue, prompted by yet another controversial incompletion ruling against Pittsburgh Steelers tight end Jesse James late in the 2017 season. Mara said the committee is not in complete agreement on the James play and acknowledged that past efforts to tweak the rule have failed.

"The Jesse James play, I think should be a completion," Mara said, "but I'm not sure we're unanimous on that. But plays where guys seem to make the catch and then make a football move with it, I think most of us agree those should be completions. Now it's just a question of coming up with the right language."

Typically, the competition committee continues rule-change discussions through the spring and makes proposals to owners at league meetings, scheduled this year for March 25-28. Mara said he couldn't be sure that a new catch rule would be ready by then, but said, "We're going to try."

He added: "It's easy to say the rule has got to be changed, but coming up with the right language is a challenge."

Dallas Cowboys fans can rejoice with the knowledge that it was indeed a catch. Unfortunately, it is too late to overturn the results of the game.

Should be interesting if they can get the language agreed upon and implemented in time for the 2018 season. Also will be interesting in seeing how the language changes.

[lancerman]

46 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Seriously, this is annoying.  Give just one benefit to the defense and every single catch controversy goes away.  If the ball touches the ground before 5 steps (easily quantifiable), it's not a catch.  If the ball comes loose or touches the ground after 5 steps, it's a fumble.  Literally every controversial call ended. 

Lol people can’t handle a catch being ruled incomplete if a dude takes two and a half steps while switching hands and then falling and reaching with the ball hitting the ground after. 

[RuskieTitan]

49 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Seriously, this is annoying.  Give just one benefit to the defense and every single catch controversy goes away.  If the ball touches the ground before 5 steps (easily quantifiable), it's not a catch.  If the ball comes loose or touches the ground after 5 steps, it's a fumble.  Literally every controversial call ended. 

Do steps out of bounds count? Two feet in-bounds, toe-tap, then stumble out of bounds. Per your explanation, if there are not 5 steps inbounds it's not a catch?

[MacReady]

Just now, RuskieTitan said:

Do steps out of bounds count? Two feet in-bounds, toe-tap, then stumble out of bounds. Per your explanation, if there are not 5 steps inbounds it's not a catch?

Going out of bounds would be different obviously.