ESPN: Goodell: 'We want to find a better solution' for defining a catch

[LittleBoyBlue]

True.. But easy solution, go back how it use to be, have control 2 steps, catch. End of convo

Even the two steps is silly.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Almost a century since the league was started and these clowns are trying to figure out what a catch is.

 

[gimmesix]

True.. But easy solution, go back how it use to be, have control 2 steps, catch. End of convo

I don't like two steps. I want two feet down with the ball not moving. The officials have too much trouble counting two steps.

If you catch the ball with two feet down anywhere on the field, that should be a catch. If the ball comes loose after that, it should be a fumble. That's about as simple and clear as you can get IMO.

 

[Daillest88]

I don't like two steps. I want two feet down with the ball not moving. The officials have too much trouble counting two steps.

If you catch the ball with two feet down anywhere on the field, that should be a catch. If the ball comes loose after that, it should be a fumble. That's about as simple and clear as you can get IMO.

Yeah that sounds about right

 

[texbumthelife]

Players would still have to satisfy the requirements for a completed pass. 2 feet down, secured possession, and the element of time.

The problem with the rule is that the "going to the ground" can supercede all 3 aspects individually or as a whole.

They could solve a lot of the issues if they just changed the rule to only apply when a player "hits the ground" prior to satisfying all 3 requirements rather than arbitrarily determining when his "process" of going to the ground began.

Don't worry about anything that took place prior to contact with the ground. If a guy is falling and is able to satisfy the feet and element of time on the way to the ground, count it. Of course, you couldn't actually satisfy the securing of possession on the way to the ground unless it was a hell of a long process. They'd just do the milk maid signal and say the guy was bobbling the ball if it came out after contact with the ground.

This. If the ground cannot cause a fumble, it shouldn't be able to cause an incompletion either.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

If you're in bounds and land but ball comes out and never touches the ground is a catch. People are so into the Dez catch they didn't even consider the ball never touched the ground. No clear evidence cause Dez turned his hand over and was in between ground and ball. So if they say he didn't catch it and ball never touched ground he maintain possession in the endzone which is a TD. He was either down by contact at the 1 or it was a TD

 

[dreghorn2]

Player has ball in hand and two feet on the ground, as in ball in hand two feet at time of catch, or ball in hand one step two step.. essentially like it always used to be.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't like two steps. I want two feet down with the ball not moving. The officials have too much trouble counting two steps.

That wouldn't work for any catch that was made in stride.

 

[percyhoward]

They could solve a lot of the issues if they just changed the rule to only apply when a player "hits the ground" prior to satisfying all 3 requirements rather than arbitrarily determining when his "process" of going to the ground began.

That's exactly how it worked until this year.

 

[Hoofbite]

That's exactly how it worked until this year.

You can't say that because that's not how it worked with Calvin.

 

[cajuncocoa]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...ys-league-look-improve-rule-defining-catch-is

IRVING, Texas -- Since Cowboys wide receiver Dez Bryant's catch at the goal line in Dallas' playoff loss to the Green Bay Packers last January was overturned, what is or isn't a catch has been difficult to define.

It's been such an issue that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has reached out to those outside the game for help. Goodell said the league will look to improve the rule of what is -- or isn't -- a catch.

"The Competition Committee has looked at that, but I'll go one step further with you: A couple weeks ago, I asked several football personnel, including former GMs, current GMs, current individuals, former players, former officials, to come together and try to see if we can study this and come up with some proposals for the Competition Committee to consider," Goodell said at the conclusion of Wednesday's owners meeting outside Dallas. "We want clarity to that. We want to find a better solution if it's out there."

Who cares now?

 

[cajuncocoa]

..............and don't be prejudiced when doing it.

Breathe on Brady and you get the hanky. Same for Rogers.

And Brees.

 

[gimmesix]

That wouldn't work for any catch that was made in stride.

Not sure why not unless the receiver is going to hop on one foot down the field. Eventually both feet have to touch the ground. If the receiver catches the ball while running and doesn't get his second foot down, then it's not a catch.

Maybe you're thinking I meant he has to have both feet down at the same time, but that's not what I said.

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

You just know they're gonna screw this up too.

 

[DogFace]

They took a whole year using this absurd definition to demonstrate that we weren't really screwed in the Packers game. It'll end next year. I, like many others, knew this would happen.

 

[muck4doo]

It's really rather simple.
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/12/3/9827226/nfl-catch-rules

 

[pugilist]

Who knows, maybe they can find a good solution maybe they will muck it up more. At the very least, the thought process throughout the entire discussion / brainstorming session / whatever should be:

SIMPLER IS BETTER

put it in 50" letters printed out on a banner and hang it in the board room if you have to

 

[Fredd]

I have a 3-step plan to fix the problem Roger

1) fire all of the officials and get new ones
2) stop favoring your "buddies" like the owners from NYG and NE
3) jump off of a bridge

 

[percyhoward]

Eventually both feet have to touch the ground.

Wouldn't that be two steps, though?

 

[percyhoward]

You can't say that because that's not how it worked with Calvin.

If you're talking about 2010, that catch occurred in the end zone, where no football move is necessary. Prior to this year, the football move told the officials whether the player had held the ball long enough, but on plays like Johnson's end zone play, the official's judgment had to determine if he'd held it long enough. That's why the rule used to say that he must maintain control "long enough to make a move common to the game." The people who made the rule realized that sometimes there is no need for such a move.