Jump to content

RedRamage

Goodell wants clarity on catch rule.

Recommended Posts

Shamelessly stealing this thread idea from Shelton who posted about it in the Draft thread:

https://ci-www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2018/01/29/roger-goodell-change-catch-rule/1076761001/

Quote

While Goodell would not reveal exactly how the rule might be changed, he did say the competition committee would keep in mind that "fans want catches." The group will convene a couple of times during the next two months, and a possible change could be presented to owners as early as March.

"I hope we'll be able to address this in a way that will bring more clarity and frankly more excitement to this," Goodell said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, I have no idea what to make exactly from those comments, but I do have ideas on what I'd like to see changed, as I'm sure many of us all do, so... let's hear it... how would you re-write the rules?

My first suggestion is: lunging = football move.  If a player is clearly making a lunge or stretch towards a specific goal after first touching the ground (ie, first down or Endzone) that should count as a football move and therefore the receiver qualifies as a runner (assuming of course he has control at that point).

This would make the Steelers catch (referenced in the link above) a real catch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that’s not bad. If you are able to stretch your arms out with the ball secured in your hand, that could certainly be enough. If you have to hold it against your body and then it pops out, maybe that’s not enough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Yeah, that’s not bad. If you are able to stretch your arms out with the ball secured in your hand, that could certainly be enough. If you have to hold it against your body and then it pops out, maybe that’s not enough.  

Unfortunately... as much as like to rant and rave at times, there isn't a perfect solution in a day and age of HD and super slow mo tech... It's going to be REALLY hard to create a rule that satisfies everyone and yet can be applied fairly in a relatively short review time.

I actually like the idea of a "football move" being a delineation.  The idea being that if the player has enough control, in his opinion at least, to be able to start thinking about what he's going to do after the catch.  I just don't like that a lunge isn't considered a football move.

I think it's pretty easy to see in the Pats-Steelers game that the receiver had control and intentionally moved SEPARATELY from merely falling down to try and get the ball over the line.

I think that change in how a receiver is falling can, and should, be considered an active football move.  I feel it would be relatively easy in most cases to differentiate between a receiver diving for the catch and then losing the ball as he hits, vs a receiver catching, come part of his body touching the ground, and then moving the ball/lunging/etc.

I'd say that a ball is considered caught when two feet (or knee, butt, etc) touches in bounds and either the player maintains control while coming to a stop or the player makes an intentional move to advance the play. 

(NOTE: Advance the Play is NOT necessarily the same as Advancing the Ball.  For example, forward momentum might be carrying the receiver towards the sideline but the receiver wants to stay in bounds to keep the clock running so "lunges" away from the line and backwards.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somehow they blow another catch review, this time in the Super Bowl. Maybe they decided to change the rule last week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ball clearly moved after the first foot down, as the rule stands today he needed to get two feet in after that. He didn’t. Can’t change the rule without telling anyone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a touchdown but Calvin Johnson's touchdown is not a touchdown...okay....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they changed the rules. Cool. Glad I’m not a Pittsburgh fan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see what the question was. It looked like he took about four steps with the ball. The Pittsburgh one was much closer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought both reviewed catches were clearly TDs, but the NFL has a problem when its premier broadcast team is bashing the rule in front of 150 million people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jason_R said:

I thought both reviewed catches were clearly TDs, but the NFL has a problem when its premier broadcast team is bashing the rule in front of 150 million people.

This is how i felt too. The first one I think is a TD only because it was called one on the field.

The second one was clearly a TD. If taking 4 steps doesn't declare you a runner, what does? Awful announcing on the second "controversial" TD.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hardyaf said:

If taking 4 steps doesn't declare you a runner, what does?

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both calls made sense to me under the current rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, both calls were iffy based on the NFL's stupid rules but both were called catches on the field and there was not enough obviously wrong with those call to overturn it.   

But if those were Lions players it would have been no catch and Jim Caldwell would have just stood there - expressionless.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how that last one was iffy. I'm also not sure how Jim Caldwell's expression would have changed the call if it went against the Lions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

I honestly don't see what the question was. It looked like he took about four steps with the ball. The Pittsburgh one was much closer. 

seems to me it would be easy to at least clarify the rule around steps. If I ruled the world, I would use a '3 feet' rule. If  you catch the ball with both feet on the ground, the next foot you put down makes you a runner. Catch it with 1 foot on the ground, the 2nd foot comes down and the next foot down makes you a runner. Catch it in the air, both feet come down, the next foot down makes you a runner. I think the other place they have it wrong is that an inflated football is hard and slo mo is deceiving. Yes you can have it in your hand and have only a single point or no points of contact of the ball against your body and you are still controlling it. They seem to take the existence of any air between a ball and a body as a bobble even if the ball in the player's hand. I would switch the presumption of control go the other way. You'd get more catches and more fumbles with these rules, which the league probably wouldn't like, but I think there were be more clarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when belichick started screaming at the refs and throwing a fit when those catches weren’t overturned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm not sure how that last one was iffy. I'm also not sure how Jim Caldwell's expression would have changed the call if it went against the Lions. 

The way they've been calling catches it was iffy.   I think the fact that it's iffy is totally wrong.   We've all been waiting to get some common sense on what a "catch" is.    The NFL finally decided that if it looks like a catch, it's a catch......possession of the ball, two feet down......catch, but what is unfair is that they did it in the middle of a season and they shouldn't change the rules in the middle of a season, especially for the biggest game.     Steelers fans have to be absolutely furious over this today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

seems to me it would be easy to at least clarify the rule around steps. If I ruled the world, I would use a '3 feet' rule. If  you catch the ball with both feet on the ground, the next foot you put down makes you a runner. Catch it with 1 foot on the ground, the 2nd foot comes down and the next foot down makes you a runner. Catch it in the air, both feet come down, the next foot down makes you a runner. I think the other place they have it wrong is that an inflated football is hard and slo mo is deceiving. Yes you can have it in your hand and have only a single point or no points of contact of the ball against your body and you are still controlling it. They seem to take the existence of any air between a ball and a body as a bobble even if the ball in the player's hand. I would switch the presumption of control go the other way. You'd get more catches and more fumbles with these rules, which the league probably wouldn't like, but I think there were be more clarity.

He caught it and I counted four steps. He had to of covered about 4 yards of field and was tackled and made a dive towards the end zone. It seemed pretty cut and dry to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Motown Bombers said:

I don't recall much expression from Patricia. This concerns me now. 

He totally had an expression, but you couldn't see it under the beard.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Motown Bombers said:

He caught it and I counted four steps. He had to of covered about 4 yards of field and was tackled and made a dive towards the end zone. It seemed pretty cut and dry to me. 

Yes, I agree - it seemed cut and dry to me too, but not to the NFL in recent years.  

Doesn't matter for the Lions, even if they counted Calvin's catch, the Bears would have run back the next kickoff to win the game.   Because - the Lions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Steelers one is a lot more iffy. The receiver didn't travel about 4 yards after the catch and wasn't tackled. He caught the ball and lunged while going to the ground. The ball also may have been coming out prior to going down. That wasn't the case in this last play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

seems to me it would be easy to at least clarify the rule around steps. If I ruled the world, I would use a '3 feet' rule. If  you catch the ball with both feet on the ground, the next foot you put down makes you a runner. Catch it with 1 foot on the ground, the 2nd foot comes down and the next foot down makes you a runner. Catch it in the air, both feet come down, the next foot down makes you a runner. I think the other place they have it wrong is that an inflated football is hard and slo mo is deceiving. Yes you can have it in your hand and have only a single point or no points of contact of the ball against your body and you are still controlling it. They seem to take the existence of any air between a ball and a body as a bobble even if the ball in the player's hand. I would switch the presumption of control go the other way. You'd get more catches and more fumbles with these rules, which the league probably wouldn't like, but I think there were be more clarity.

Playing devil's advocate here... 

So two players make nearly identical catches.  Both players jump for the ball, land on two feet and are immediately hit hard knocking them off their feet.  Both players lose control of the ball after their full bodies hit the ground.

Player A has a hand comes down first, but player B has a foot come down first.  The "three foot rule" would make this a catch for player B, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,083
    • Total Posts
      2,815,435
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×