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

[percyhoward]

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. I want to limit the observable requirement.

I think the rule was fine the way it was. There shouldn't be a lot more fumbles, and there shouldn't be a lot more confusion either. There was never any need to limit the observable requirement when competent eyes were doing the observing. This is just a case of one very ambitious and naive guy upsetting the apple cart.

 

[TrailBlazer]

How moronic is Dean Blandino and the rules committee? They changed the catch rule to the current rule to cut down on fumbles. Never once watched football and said, "ya know if it wasn't for all these fumbles I'd watch more football"... Fumbles are down from 2.4% to 2%.. You can't define what a catch is, but you know it when you see it. These plays should be reviewed on a case by case basis. It should be a judgment call based on control of the football. Not steps, football moves or any of that crap.

 

[gimmesix]

I think the rule was fine the way it was. There shouldn't be a lot more fumbles, and there shouldn't be a lot more confusion either. There was never any need to limit the observable requirement when competent eyes were doing the observing. This is just a case of one very ambitious and naive guy upsetting the apple cart.

I don't think it was fine the way it was (unless you're talking about the way it was quite a ways back now). I think when they started getting to the point where a receiver had to do more than get two feet down with possession when falling out of bounds, they opened things up for interpretation.

I still believe if you catch the ball inbounds falling out of bounds, it should be a catch no matter if you still have possession when you hit the ground. I believe if you square up and catch a pass, you shouldn't have to run with the ball for it to be ruled a catch.

It was that way once and they started messing with it, leading us to the point where catches are no longer catches.

I believe the league has long lost sight of what the word catch means.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't think it was fine the way it was (unless you're talking about the way it was quite a ways back now). I think when they started getting to the point where a receiver had to do more than get two feet down with possession when falling out of bounds, they opened things up for interpretation..

I believe that the football move means "do something" with the ball. Something that shows that you're no longer still trying to catch it. And I don't think that's difficult to interpret at all. Switch hands with it, tuck it, take another step, etc. These are all observable requirements, not open to interpretation in any way, but still visible to anything but the untrained eye. It's also the clear and absolutely necessary third element that stops the "bang-bang" play from being turned into a catch-fumble, which is probably why they came up with it and used it for years.

 

[ConstantReboot]

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."

Nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a biased call taking away the "catch" from Bryant.

The reason why its so hard to define whats a catch and what is not is nothing more than them trying to justify a bad call going worst. The NFL is trying to prove that their right and that they're doing everything in their power to rectify this issue.

But...........

This was never an issue before. Until they overturned Bryant's catch.

Thus this is nothing more than PR spin.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think the rule was fine the way it was. There shouldn't be a lot more fumbles, and there shouldn't be a lot more confusion either. There was never any need to limit the observable requirement when competent eyes were doing the observing. This is just a case of one very ambitious and naive guy upsetting the apple cart.

Do we know who made the rules change as in who proposed it to the competition committee?

 

[percyhoward]

Do we know who made the rules change as in who proposed it to the competition committee?

Since the rule change retroactively fit the erroneous call in Green Bay, I'm assuming the one who made the call also made the change happen.

 

[CF74]

"We" needs to go out long for a pass, ya know, play the game to comprehend it...

#Amatuers

 

[Beast_from_East]

In other words..............sorry for costing you the game Dallas, we will try not to make the same mistake in the future.

Gee, thanks.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Since the rule change retroactively fit the erroneous call in Green Bay, I'm assuming the one who made the call also made the change happen.

Yeah they basically tried to go back and change history. It's a bit unreal.

 

[BermyStar]

When instant replay came onto the scene, this is when the catch rule started to get confusing. Pieces were added and amended to define a catch. Imo a catch should be two feet inbounds and control. If there is no control, i.e. A bobble or juggle and player goes out of bounds or ball hits the turf then it's incomplete.

Exactly

 

[percyhoward]

Yeah they basically tried to go back and change history. It's a bit unreal.

It's the public relations solution. Twice so far this season, when an official or crew has made a mistake, they've been removed from the next prime time game that they were originally scheduled to work, and moved to a game that would have less exposure. I guess it's what you should expect when the head of officials has a degree in communication/media studies, and never officiated a game on the field. He may not know football, but he knows that people have short memories, and media fires die out at the end of the news cycle.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's the public relations solution. Twice so far this season, when an official or crew has made a mistake, they've been removed from the next prime time game that they were originally scheduled to work, and moved to a game that would have less exposure. I guess it's what you should expect when the head of officials has a degree in communication/media studies, and never officiated a game on the field. He may not know football, but he knows that people have short memories, and media fires die out at the end of the news cycle.

Well hey I appreciate your effort to keep that as part of conventional wisdom. it deserves to be.

 

[gimmesix]

I believe that the football move means "do something" with the ball. Something that shows that you're no longer still trying to catch it. And I don't think that's difficult to interpret at all. Switch hands with it, tuck it, take another step, etc. These are all observable requirements, not open to interpretation in any way, but still visible to anything but the untrained eye. It's also the clear and absolutely necessary third element that stops the "bang-bang" play from being turned into a catch-fumble, which is probably why they came up with it and used it for years.

When you have to say "I believe" that should tell you it's open to interpretation. You believe it means do something with the ball. Clearly, not all officials see it that way and the league can't decide how it sees it, which is why we now have this establish yourself as a runner junk.

I agree that it does stop a bang-bang play from being turned into a catch-fumble, but I don't believe that needed to be changed. The game was fine when bang-bang plays resulted in fumbles. It is not fine with catches not being catches.