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

[Don Corleone]

Officiating has ruled the league for some time now.

Can we start by getting these former officials off of the broadcast? They add nothing to the game. I'm still pissed about Periera (Gazoo) piping up right away on the Dez catch. I sensed he was trying to influence the ruling. You know the replay ruling powers were listening to him.

 

[cowboys2233]

Too late - we was robbed.

They need to form a committee to understand that allowing a single person to make a subjective interpretation like "a football move" is going to lead to confusion and controversy? Please.

 

[hornitosmonster]

A little too late. It is ridiculous that a pro league doesn't know what a catch is.

 

[Frozen700]

Too late - we was robbed.

Not everything is about us.

It also happened to other players.

 

[gimmesix]

Wouldn't that be two steps, though?

It could certainly include two steps if the receiver has to take steps to get two feet down. However, it would also include the receiver just coming straight down on the field with both feet and the ball in possession. It eliminates the need to decide if he did that, establishing control, and also took two steps before he lost control of the ball, or made a football move or whatever they want to call it.

The onus would be on the receiver having control of the ball until he gets both feet down. If he's taking steps and doesn't have control when the first foot hits the ground, but has control when the second hits the ground, then loses the ball before two feet are down with control, it's incomplete. If it slips out of his hands right after that second foot gets down, he fumbled.

To me, it's much easier to determine whether he had control long enough to get two feet down than to look at a play where a receiver clearly caught the ball with both feet on the ground and say it's not a catch because he didn't also take two steps.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

I get it., progress. always changing, evolving, getting better..etc etc .. I understand the importance of analysis, stats and discussion, and processe engineering.... IT Configuration and MGMT , in order to socialize, organize and gather the best result from the the largest group of people and organize large sets of information. And all this needs to be defined and socialized, vetted and peer reviewed....I get it.....i get it....

but.


it makes me want to jump off a building; Everyone knows what a GD catch is............................ lets play football.

 

[aikemirv]

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

Exactly, it was simple and easily confirmed.

 

[ohiocowboysfan25]

I'm not sure I understand why the powers that be changed the rule of what a catch is in the first place. Unless Dez or megatron and the rest of the star wr's are superman and catch the ball and fly to the endzone i'm not sure I get how 2 feet down and possession doesn't work. I kept hearing/reading people say that because the players are so athletic the rule needed to change but two feet down is two feet down. So can someone please explain to me why the changes were necessary the last few years.

 

[JoeKing]

Maintaining control of the ball out of bounds has just made the whole thing confusing. And if the ground can't cause a runner to fumble then it can't cause a catcher to fumble either. It's just a dead ball were the ground caused the runner or catcher to lose the ball.

 

[KJJ]

A better solution of defining a catch is to eliminate this lengthy process they force receivers to go through to constitute a legal catch. Once the receiver has the ball secured long enough ( a full second) without any movement or bobbling of the ball it should go as a catch regardless if the receiver is going to the ground and loses the ball through the contact of the ground.

On the Calvin Johnson and Dez play both had the ball clearly long enough with complete control as they were going to the ground to establish possession of the ball but the process of having to maintain possession through the contact of the ground is what wiped out both plays.

The current rule has fans, players and coaches frustrated and confused even some of the officials aren't sure what's a catch and what isn't. A rule that has so many up in arms needs to be defined better so everyone is clear as to what a legal catch is. With the athletic ability of receivers today the rules have to adapt to the skills and capabilities of these players.

 

[percyhoward]

It could certainly include two steps if the receiver has to take steps to get two feet down. However, it would also include the receiver just coming straight down on the field with both feet and the ball in possession. It eliminates the need to decide if he did that, establishing control, and also took two steps before he lost control of the ball, or made a football move or whatever they want to call it.

The onus would be on the receiver having control of the ball until he gets both feet down. If he's taking steps and doesn't have control when the first foot hits the ground, but has control when the second hits the ground, then loses the ball before two feet are down with control, it's incomplete. If it slips out of his hands right after that second foot gets down, he fumbled.

To me, it's much easier to determine whether he had control long enough to get two feet down than to look at a play where a receiver clearly caught the ball with both feet on the ground and say it's not a catch because he didn't also take two steps.

What you just described would be four feet down. At no time was there a rule that said you had to take steps in addition to getting both feet down in order to satisfy the first two requirements in the catch process. You may be referring to what used to be the 3rd requirement -- the football move. Advancing the ball (taking another couple of steps) would certainly be a football move.

You just need control and two feet down to satisfy the first two requirements. The control can come before the feet down, or simultaneous -- never afterward. And those first two requirements haven't changed. Only the 3rd requirement (the football move) was changed to "maintaining control long enough to become a runner."

It sounds like you want to go by the first two requirements only (control and two feet down), and remove the time element (formerly "establishing yourself as a runner by virtue of a football move," and currently just "establishing yourself as a runner"). But I don't think the time element will ever be removed, for reasons of player safety.

 

[Junglist]

I'm still more pissed at what they called a catch that clearly hit the ground for the pack then I am the Dez non catch.

What in the actual **** was that?

Yeah, people seem to forget the Cobb catch hitting the ground, the play was reviewed, and they still called it a catch, while robbing us of an obvious completion. Only Packers fans will say we didn't flat out get hosed in that game.

 

[Junglist]

A better solution of defining a catch is to eliminate this lengthy process they force receivers to go through to constitute a legal catch. Once the receiver has the ball secured long enough ( a full second) without any movement or bobbling of the ball it should go as a catch regardless if the receiver is going to the ground and loses the ball through the contact of the ground.

Ex-freaking-actly. It's a catch were talking about here. We've all been doing it since we were tiny kids.

 

[Idgit]

The easiest thing to do is to probably not make defining a catch a part of the review. Let them make sure feet are down, but just roll with the calls on the field in terms of possession. Sure, you'll get the same number of calls wrong and fans of whichever team gets jobbed will be butthurt, but they'll be butthurt over human error in real time, which has understandable limitations, instead of looking at a series of stills and second guessing whatever deliberated ruling you're getting from NY or the front office in a formal review process.

At least for my part, *that's* what ticks me off with these plays. I can buy an official making a tough judgement call, but still messing it up, or offering us something completely refutable and very confusing after careful deliberation is maddening. It makes the league look bad and the game decisions look capricious.

 

[gimmesix]

What you just described would be four feet down. At no time was there a rule that said you had to take steps in addition to getting both feet down in order to satisfy the first two requirements in the catch process. You may be referring to what used to be the 3rd requirement -- the football move. Advancing the ball (taking another couple of steps) would certainly be a football move.

You just need control and two feet down to satisfy the first two requirements. The control can come before the feet down, or simultaneous -- never afterward. And those first two requirements haven't changed. Only the 3rd requirement (the football move) was changed to "maintaining control long enough to become a runner."

It sounds like you want to go by the first two requirements only (control and two feet down), and remove the time element (formerly "establishing yourself as a runner by virtue of a football move," and currently just "establishing yourself as a runner"). But I don't think the time element will ever be removed, for reasons of player safety.

It is the time element that I want removed. I'm not sure why you see that as a safety issue. I don't see the need to maintain control long enough to become a runner, because long enough to become a runner is subjective. Football is a split-second game. Fumbles have to be checked to see if any part of the body got down before the ball comes out. That can be fairly easy to measure. Catches should be fairly easy to measure as well.

Since the Dez Bryant one is best known on this board, let's take it as an example. Dez never lost control of the ball between the time his first foot touched down and his second foot touched down. He lost control when he went to the ground. I believe if two feet and control are the only things considered, then there's no doubt it was a catch. Add in going to the ground, add in "maintaining control long enough to become a runner" and you've created doubt about the catch because while I see that he maintained control long enough to become a runner (or make a football move), the replay officials did not.

There would be a lot more fumbles under the simplified rule, but I'd rather see that than have to have referees hold a conference to decide that something that should be a catch isnet.

 

[percyhoward]

It is the time element that I want removed. I'm not sure why you see that as a safety issue. I don't see the need to maintain control long enough to become a runner, because long enough to become a runner is subjective.

Of course it's subjective the way they use it now. Before this year, you had to complete the 3-part catch process in order to establish yourself as a runner. In other words, there used to be an observable requirement, but now it's just a judgment call. They need to go back to the old rule, which made more sense and was created by more knowledgeable individuals, I'd venture to say.

Since the Dez Bryant one is best known on this board, let's take it as an example. Dez never lost control of the ball between the time his first foot touched down and his second foot touched down. He lost control when he went to the ground. I believe if two feet and control are the only things considered, then there's no doubt it was a catch. Add in going to the ground, add in "maintaining control long enough to become a runner" and you've created doubt about the catch because while I see that he maintained control long enough to become a runner (or make a football move), the replay officials did not.

That wasn't a problem with the rule, but there was a huge problem with the interpretation. A reach for the goal line has always been considered a football move, and an one-handed reach that breaks the plane has always been a touchdown. Logically, it makes no sense to interpret the rule as saying that a one-handed reach is not a football move.

 

[coult44]

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."

2+2=5

 

[Yuma Cactus]

 

[SkinsandTerps]

This league has been an awful long time for them to still be trying to figure this facet of the game out. Pretty sad really.
Not to mention they can't figure out interceptions, fumbles, head shots, etc.

 

[gimmesix]

Of course it's subjective the way they use it now. Before this year, you had to complete the 3-part catch process in order to establish yourself as a runner. In other words, there used to be an observable requirement, but now it's just a judgment call. They need to go back to the old rule, which made more sense and was created by more knowledgeable individuals, I'd venture to say.


That wasn't a problem with the rule, but there was a huge problem with the interpretation. A reach for the goal line has always been considered a football move, and an one-handed reach that breaks the plane has always been a touchdown. Logically, it makes no sense to interpret the rule as saying that a one-handed reach is not a football move.

I agree that it makes no sense to say a one-handed reach is not a football move, but we've obviously seen that logic doesn't always rule. I want to limit the observable requirement. No interpretation needed, either he had control from the time one foot touched to the time the other foot touched down or he didn't. With replay, that's very easy to see. The officials don't have to decide if a receiver is held up after making a catch that he didn't become a runner so therefore it wasn't a catch. They don't have to decide that the ball coming out as the receiver is taken to the ground means he didn't complete the process. Feet down, control, let happen what happen.

I know that would create a lot more fumbles that would be the next thing fans would get mad about, but if you establish an easy criteria for a catch, then it will be easy to determine in most cases. I want my eyes see to be a catch, not what a conference of officials has to deduce.