NY Times take on What is a Catch in the NFL

I like Mike Florio's “100 drunks in a bar” standard referred to in the article.

Seriously though, why not simplify? What's wrong with 2 feet on the ground and possession? Losing the ball afterwards is a fumble, if inbounds, and the ground cannot cause a fumble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/s...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

raduray said:

I like Mike Florio's “100 drunks in a bar” standard referred to in the article.

Seriously though, why not simplify? What's wrong with 2 feet on the ground and possession? Losing the ball afterwards is a fumble, if inbounds, and the ground cannot cause a fumble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/s...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Click to expand...

I think the league would prefer to have the bang/bang play called incomplete than a fumble.
I think I agree.

What is so difficult about "control the ball" "become a carrier" and the ground CAN cause an incompletion.
I tend to agree its not the rule, its the poor understanding of the rule.

"Why not simplify?"

Because then officials would actually have to call games by the book instead of interpreting what they think the rule is meant to mean.

NFL rules are basically like the Constitution

Referees= supreme court appointees there for interpretation.

Implementing rather vague rules against common nature occurrences like, contact down the field, holding and what is a catch/fumble allow for "normal" penalties to be called whenever the referees chose. How many times does Chandler Jones get his neck jacked back by an illegal hands to the face? Let a Pats DB graze the facemask of an opposing receiver and watch 10 flags fly.

Amendola's catch and fumble that was challenged by Kubiak actually looked like a catch and fumble. The only problem was he was down by contact before actually losing possession of the ball.

Fortunately for the NFL, they can get together and discuss it for 2 min on the field and then a couple more under the hood to decide what they want to rule. Simplifying it means being forced to give New England the 1st down.

/incoherent rambling against the corruption of the NFL

raduray said:

I like Mike Florio's “100 drunks in a bar” standard referred to in the article.

Seriously though, why not simplify? What's wrong with 2 feet on the ground and possession? Losing the ball afterwards is a fumble, if inbounds, and the ground cannot cause a fumble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/s...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Click to expand...

Agree ... this new what is a catch ******** drives me crazy.

I made it about 3 minutes and stopped reading. I think I'll take a night course in algebra. Might be
easier to understand.

If you've got the ball in the end zone under control, it's [should be IMO]a touch down. Why would you need to complicate that?

The rule is well defined. It's just that what our eyes tell us is a catch and what the rules tell us don't always align.

In another article Goodell also admitted there was room for improvement and that right now they are erring on at least making it easy for the officials, but suggests that change could come........

We debated that in the office the last couple weeks," Goodell said. "And I think what we're really going to do is get some people who are really focused on evaluating every one of these, and try to see, because it's a balance between what you think is a catch, what the officials can officiate on a consistent basis and what's going to have what we call the unintended consequences. . . A lot of people believe the right way to do it is the second foot down and control, that's a catch. That's something we'll have to look at. Again."