Not sure I have anything more insightful to add than what has already been said.
What I know for certain is this. To achieve consistency in anything, layering additional complexity to something already muddled creates more complexity. The whole thing is madness, IMO. Officials are scared to death of making a call on the field as the fear blowing the game, pissing players and the fans off and getting a bad grade from the Blandickhead. They try to help officials but are failing completely in the effort. They add additional verbiage which if I'm the official confuses me even more and makes me more skiddish. They need to make it simpler. Period.
IMO the additional language is useless. There is nothing that makes the catch/no catch action more finite or cut-n-dry.
IMO this what the rule needs to be and say (No big revelation here)
- Receiver catches ball.
- Receiver gets two feet down (steps sequential after each other or both simultaneously, who cares)
- In order to be a catch, ball MUST be secure and not moving around in hand after 2nd foot or both hit(s) ground.
- If 2nd foot is not down and/or ball is still unsecure and ball hits ground, its incomplete.
- Any movement of ball after that completed event is a fumble.
For catches NOT involving feet....
- Ball must be secure.
- Ground cannot aid securing football
- In either instance, if ball hits ground and become dislodged ball is ruled incomplete.
Certainly replays will still be needed. The game is so fast. This is where BB's rule which calls for every play be reviewed is brought in. Let the field determine that - not New York.
Not sure if folks agree but I think simple is better....
