cowboyjoe
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 28,432
- Reaction score
- 750
landino says he’s always looking to simplify the catch rule
Posted by Mike Florio on October 20, 2015, 8:43 PM EDT
APSunday’s non-catch that became a catch after replay review from Lions receiver Golden Tate has left some fans more confused than ever about what is and isn’t a catch. NFL V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino is not among the confused.
“I’m never confused [by the rule], but I’m certainly always looking to see if we can simplify things and believe me, we don’€™t want to have rules where people are confused and not sure what is a catch and what isn’t a catch. I feel like we do have good rules, but we’re always going to evaluate them and tweak them when needed,” Blandino said on NFL Network’s Total Access, via NFL.com.
On the Tate catch, the confusion for some arose from the fact that a defender quickly stripped the ball from Tate’s hands. At full speed, it looked like a live ball that was intercepted by the Bears. In frame-by-frame slow motion, it was clear that Tate caught the ball and had two feet on the ground.
Also, he wasn’t going to the ground until after he got two feet on the ground with possession of the ball. By then, the play was over because it was a catch and a touchdown.
“Anywhere else, it’s really a catch and a fumble,” Blandino said. “In the end zone because you can’t fumble. . . . That’s when it becomes a catch and a touchdown. When we look at the play. . . . Forget about going to the ground, this is a different part of the rule. It’s different from the Dez [Bryant] play, the [Tyler] Eifert play or the [DeVonta] Freeman play. This is an upright receiver who’s attempting to catch the pass.”
Blandino is right, and the conclusion was correct — even though the ability to slow the play down helped persuade referee Walt Coleman that Tate had the ball long enough, despite that the know-it-when-you-see-it expectations of some were that Tate didn’t hold the ball long enough for it to be a catch.
And that’s what continues to be the problem with the rules regarding what is and isn’t a catch. All too often, the rule (even when properly applied) conflicts with what players, coaches, media, and fans believe should be a catch. The challenge for the NFL isn’t to make the catch/no-catch rule more simple; it’s to make the rule better mesh with what the average person believes is or isn’t a catch.
Alternatively, the NFL needs to do a much better job of getting the average person to buy in to the rules in the same way the man ultimately responsible for their interpretation does.
Posted by Mike Florio on October 20, 2015, 8:43 PM EDT
“I’m never confused [by the rule], but I’m certainly always looking to see if we can simplify things and believe me, we don’€™t want to have rules where people are confused and not sure what is a catch and what isn’t a catch. I feel like we do have good rules, but we’re always going to evaluate them and tweak them when needed,” Blandino said on NFL Network’s Total Access, via NFL.com.
On the Tate catch, the confusion for some arose from the fact that a defender quickly stripped the ball from Tate’s hands. At full speed, it looked like a live ball that was intercepted by the Bears. In frame-by-frame slow motion, it was clear that Tate caught the ball and had two feet on the ground.
Also, he wasn’t going to the ground until after he got two feet on the ground with possession of the ball. By then, the play was over because it was a catch and a touchdown.
“Anywhere else, it’s really a catch and a fumble,” Blandino said. “In the end zone because you can’t fumble. . . . That’s when it becomes a catch and a touchdown. When we look at the play. . . . Forget about going to the ground, this is a different part of the rule. It’s different from the Dez [Bryant] play, the [Tyler] Eifert play or the [DeVonta] Freeman play. This is an upright receiver who’s attempting to catch the pass.”
Blandino is right, and the conclusion was correct — even though the ability to slow the play down helped persuade referee Walt Coleman that Tate had the ball long enough, despite that the know-it-when-you-see-it expectations of some were that Tate didn’t hold the ball long enough for it to be a catch.
And that’s what continues to be the problem with the rules regarding what is and isn’t a catch. All too often, the rule (even when properly applied) conflicts with what players, coaches, media, and fans believe should be a catch. The challenge for the NFL isn’t to make the catch/no-catch rule more simple; it’s to make the rule better mesh with what the average person believes is or isn’t a catch.
Alternatively, the NFL needs to do a much better job of getting the average person to buy in to the rules in the same way the man ultimately responsible for their interpretation does.
